Why do you "need to maintain a voice on these platforms"? I have never understood this reasoning. Aside from being simply untrue if taken at face value (no one needs to be on Twitter. You won't die. I promise), it seems like circular logic to me. We want to reduce the influence of Twitter, but I can't get off Twitter because reasons, which removes the most effective means you have of reducing the influence of Twitter.
Maybe I don't get it, though. Why do you have to have this presence on platforms that hate you?
Twitter is an important platform to defend and promote your views, as well as interact with others. Facebook is more about you bitching to family and friends, annoying them. Instagram is even more useless, as it largely is a place to look at photos of celebrities whoring themselves out and laughably trying to interact with them.
You can cut off Facebook, IG, Netflix, and TikTok with ease. Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon are more difficult for all but the monk-class of conservatives.
Twitter is a brand name. The actual functions of the Twitter platform could be duplicated by a semi-talented team of developers in a couple weeks, tops. Without the content, Twitter is nothing. Users are the content. So it's really this simple: If you want Twitter to be less influential, stop using Twitter.
Twitter needs Donald Trump far more than he needs Twitter. That has everything to do with why they hate him so much.
Of course the functions of Twitter could be duplicated, and there’s nothing inherent in the coding that couldn’t be done elsewhere. What they do have, which is extremely difficult to replicate is their network in place and user base. Government agencies, corporations, and public figures all use Twitter, and some as their primary means of communication to the public. It’s not going to go away just because conservatives migrate away from that site. Institutions and public figures will need to stop using it, for it to be replaced. Even if Trump moved, it would hardly be enough.
Unfortunately Twitter is needed, and has become a defacto public utility form of communication with elected officials, corporations, and other important institutions. If that was removed, then yes, Twitter would be unimportant. The truth is that it has become one of the sole means of communication for societal functions. Denying access to their platform, is denying communication with essential institutions and arguably the public at large.
If what you say is true, then Twitter is the modern public square and should be nationalized, as the very idea of it being owned by a company or individual is a threat to liberty, no matter how they moderate it.
Personally, I think the low information voter/normie meme is way over played. People seek out media that reinforces what they believe. What difference does it make how much a person pays attention, in that case?
That's why I don't buy this idea that Twitter is somehow crucial to the national narrative. There is no national narrative. If there were, Twitter would just ban all conservatives and be done with it, they'd own the narrative. They can't do that, not because of some threat of more toothless regulation, but because like all talent agents and aggregators, they are playing a delicate game. They can't have people leaving en mass, if they did it would break the perception that Twitter is this important place for discussion. Because that's all it is; a perception.
Why do you "need to maintain a voice on these platforms"? I have never understood this reasoning. Aside from being simply untrue if taken at face value (no one needs to be on Twitter. You won't die. I promise), it seems like circular logic to me. We want to reduce the influence of Twitter, but I can't get off Twitter because reasons, which removes the most effective means you have of reducing the influence of Twitter.
Maybe I don't get it, though. Why do you have to have this presence on platforms that hate you?
Twitter is an important platform to defend and promote your views, as well as interact with others. Facebook is more about you bitching to family and friends, annoying them. Instagram is even more useless, as it largely is a place to look at photos of celebrities whoring themselves out and laughably trying to interact with them.
You can cut off Facebook, IG, Netflix, and TikTok with ease. Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon are more difficult for all but the monk-class of conservatives.
Twitter is a brand name. The actual functions of the Twitter platform could be duplicated by a semi-talented team of developers in a couple weeks, tops. Without the content, Twitter is nothing. Users are the content. So it's really this simple: If you want Twitter to be less influential, stop using Twitter.
Twitter needs Donald Trump far more than he needs Twitter. That has everything to do with why they hate him so much.
Of course the functions of Twitter could be duplicated, and there’s nothing inherent in the coding that couldn’t be done elsewhere. What they do have, which is extremely difficult to replicate is their network in place and user base. Government agencies, corporations, and public figures all use Twitter, and some as their primary means of communication to the public. It’s not going to go away just because conservatives migrate away from that site. Institutions and public figures will need to stop using it, for it to be replaced. Even if Trump moved, it would hardly be enough.
Unfortunately Twitter is needed, and has become a defacto public utility form of communication with elected officials, corporations, and other important institutions. If that was removed, then yes, Twitter would be unimportant. The truth is that it has become one of the sole means of communication for societal functions. Denying access to their platform, is denying communication with essential institutions and arguably the public at large.
If what you say is true, then Twitter is the modern public square and should be nationalized, as the very idea of it being owned by a company or individual is a threat to liberty, no matter how they moderate it.
Because 50% or more of the voter base are normies who only half pay attention and when they do it's mostly on FB, IG, tiktok ect
That is why FB and twitter want to bsn anything pro Trump. To convince normies orange man is bad.
Personally, I think the low information voter/normie meme is way over played. People seek out media that reinforces what they believe. What difference does it make how much a person pays attention, in that case?
That's why I don't buy this idea that Twitter is somehow crucial to the national narrative. There is no national narrative. If there were, Twitter would just ban all conservatives and be done with it, they'd own the narrative. They can't do that, not because of some threat of more toothless regulation, but because like all talent agents and aggregators, they are playing a delicate game. They can't have people leaving en mass, if they did it would break the perception that Twitter is this important place for discussion. Because that's all it is; a perception.