| I don't see Twitter as an improvement over what we had before. The same people controlling the media once, are on the boards of the companies that allegedly made the change possible. On the other hand, their faces are hidden now, so we can't really say if a certain topic is legitimately important for the general public or the consensus has been fabricated or, even worse, their platform has been abused and we won't know until it's too late because it's bad PR. At least in the past I could almost be sure that a media outlet was not easy to infiltrate so their opinion reflected their beliefs and I could take a stance pro or against. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitte... Now if I think Twitter has been corrupted by malevolent entities, I can't really do a lot about it, because I risk to.lose my voice too. There aren't many other ways I can have the same exposure. There's a completely different set of incentives at play. |
Edit: re-reading this, I’m giving Twitter too much credit, but I hope the point I’m trying to make is still visible.