The People's Twitter.
And it would definitely not selectively censor unfashionable opinions if it were run by a government bureaucracy.
Because public sector bodies only ever maximise The Common Good.
Could even call it The International Common Good Association, just to make sure

"I don't like the fact that Twitter is so subservient to the woke elites. Let's create a massive state regulator, so that the woke elites, which have a stranglehold on most institutions... oh no, wait..."
(I mean, he's not entirely wrong. His solution may be rubbish, but there is an issue here. Twitter really does have a substantial amount of market power.
Still: There are people who I just will not ever side with, even when they have a point. And that includes Communitarians.)
As far as I can see, there are no good solutions here.
5 years ago, I would have said "Lol, Twitter is just a private company, like any other. The Guardian wouldn't publish anything by me, but that's not "censorship". They're just not letting me use their platform."
However...
...Twitter really does benefit from substantial network effects. We are on Twitter, because everyone else is also on Twitter. You can set up a rival platform, but that would be like being the only person who has a telephone: not very useful, because there's no one you can call.
Does that make Twitter a natural monopoly?
Not automatically. Before Parler came along, my prediction was: One day, a rival platform will pop up. A lot of Cool People will switch to it. Then lots of people will follow, because most people imitate what The Cool People do.
So...
...in that way, the network effect problem can be overcome. All you need is a group of high-status early adopters, ready to switch en bloc. And then, you can have a competitive marketplace. You get "competing Twitters", trying to woo the trendsetters.
And then, Parler happened 😱
Parler was doomed from the moment a couple of prominent right-wingers decided to set up shop there, because that meant that it was now perceived as a "right-wing Twitter". Since "right-wing" = low-status, that was the death sentence.
It was...
...the exact opposite of the effect I had in mind.
My prediction: some high-status people will switch ➡️ everyone will follow.
The reality: some low-status people switched ➡️ nobody followed, because nobody ever follows low-status people. Everyone tries to steer clear of them.
And THAT is the true source of Twitter's market power. It's not about the technology, or traditional network economics. It's the fact that Twitter is dominated by the sort of people who have what the Krauts call "Diskurshoheit" (=the dominance of public discourse).
The trouble is that everyone wants to be where those people are. Because those people are the ones whose views matter. There's no point in switching to a different platform if it means talking to a bunch of stranded Milo fans, whose views are fundamentally unimportant.
This means that the only type of platform that could challenge Twitter's market power would be a platform that attracts Twitter's high-status users.
And how could you do that? Why, by out-twittering Twitter. By being like Twitter, except more so. Woker, greener, more communist.
If people like Owen Jones and Ash Sarkar said "We've had it with Twitter; we're switching to platform X" - X would have a very good chance of success. Because millions would follow them.
But nobody else has that sort of cultural power.
And what sort of platform would they choose?

More from Government

The Government is making the same mistakes as it did in the first wave. Except with knowledge.

A thread.


The Government's strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was to 'cocoon' the vulnerable (e.g. those in care homes). This was a 'herd immunity' strategy. This interview is from


This strategy failed. It is impossible to 'cocoon' the vulnerable, as Covid is passed from younger people to older, more vulnerable people.

We can see this playing out through heatmaps. e.g. these heatmaps from the second


The Government then decided to change its strategy to 'preventing a second wave that overwhelms the NHS'. This was announced on 8 June in Parliament.

This is not the same as 'preventing a second wave'.

https://t.co/DPWiJbCKRm


The Academy of Medical Scientists published a report on 14 July 'Preparing for a Challenging Winter' commissioned by the Chief Scientific Adviser that set out what needed to be done in order to prevent a catastrophe over the winter
2017 https://t.co/kiqQoWR57e


https://t.co/W18nqFlLru


The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.

“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”

No. Knock it off.

Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:

1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.

2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
Abbott is pushing a lie to protect incompetence. There is no Federal oversight of the Texas Grid, ergo fewer regulations (sound familiar) - so point one: state legislature needs reform. 2/


2. Point 2: there were clear signs the grid would get overloaded under extreme cold conditions. Why? Due to a vacuum of regulations mandating winterization of turbines and power generators. This from sources, in Texas!

3. Point 3: Of the power shortfall that hit Texas, over 80% was due to problems at coal and gas fired plants. Power generators were just not winterized. Decisions to do so have been ignored since the 1990s.

4. Point 4: these are winterized wind turbines in Denmark. The ocean is frozen. The turbines are generating.


5. #Texas| the main issue is: catastrophic governance at the State level (no Federal oversight of the Texas grid) failing to allocate funding to winterise the Natural Gas, Coal and Wind Turbine elements that contribute to the grid. (~ 80/20

You May Also Like

1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:

Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.

Characteristics of a personal moat below:


2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.

As Andrew Chen noted:


3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized

Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than


4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.

After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.

5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.

In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.