[richmarr]

> And yet, that's what they want to seem like they are. Until something like this happens...

They want to be as close to being a town square as it's possible for a commercial service to be... but there'll always be differences in behaviour caused by anonymity, and scale.

Perhaps more importantly, if the town square turns into a huge argument, and all the reasonable people go home, the town square doesn't have to explain what happened to its shareholders.

[Nullabillity]

As close as possible and as close as profitable are vastly different goals. As a user, the latter is not particularly interesting, even though most platforms (including this one, of course) take that approach, sadly.

[richmarr]

> As close as possible and as close as profitable are vastly different goals.

Sure, if you want to set up a non-profit or p2p social network (or contribute to an existing one) then good luck getting widespread adoption.

I sympathise, in the social networking world you're bound to the low common denominator of the group you want to talk to.

As a niche user you have a set of opinions that may or may not be bourne out by evidence of majority behaviour. The majority seems to without fail opt for profit-making services because they're usually higher quality & the conditions are broadly considered acceptable.

Edit: Corrected "down-sides" to "conditions" because I don't consider them entirely negative.

[croon]

Why sadly? Is there any meaningful discourse - AT ALL - that's been upended by Twitter "censoring" posts or banning users?

If they never have impeded on peoples abilities to have meaningful conversations and exchanging of ideas, then what exactly is the problem? If all you want to do is fling poo, go to the zoo (rhyme unintended).