[mywittyname]

And yet, they all have Facebook, Google, and Apple accounts. You can hate them all you want, but you're not going to change them by shoveling money into their pockets. They care enough to bitch, but not enough to do anything about it.

These people who hate Twitter probably don't even use Twitter. If you're not interesting or important, then nobody on Twitter cares what you have to say. It's not like Facebook, where you can argue politics with someone from high school. A nobody on Twitter is just screaming at the clouds.

[systemvoltage]

Twitter is a monopoly. When the only way for government officials to relay messages to their constituents is through a private platform such as Twitter, it ceases to have the same privilege as a private corporation. It is a de facto public square. This is not up for debate.

[awb]

> It is a de facto public square. This is not up for debate.

You provide no evidence and then try to shut down other opinions? This is certainly not a self-evident fact.

Maybe the public square is still the public square? Or the Internet itself?

Isn’t “public” in “public square” important? Twitter is a private company. The public square became important to free discussion because it was owned by the public. Twitter isn’t.

And between FB, YT, Reddit, podcasting, Google search, etc. we’ve actually never had this many different, non-siloed ways of communicating publicly. If Twitter went bankrupt tomorrow there would still be many ways for the public to broadcast their thoughts to a wide audience.

I don’t understand how a website that the majority of my friends and family don’t use, isn’t public and isn’t in the top 10 visited sites can be the “de facto public square”.

Sure, it’s a major communication channel, but one of many.

[spsful]

This is very much up for debate. Elected officials actually have free postage and can send letters if they need to. Not only that, they likely enjoy direct access to their local news networks and can broadcast messages through that avenue. Most have email lists, and can send interested constituents updates through that platform. Most also have websites on official .gov accounts where they could host press releases as well.

Not everyone has a Twitter account, and I think you need to seriously reframe your perspective if you think it is the cure-all for delivering news to constituents.

[systemvoltage]

> Not everyone has a Twitter account, and I think you need to seriously reframe your perspective if you think it is the cure-all for delivering news to constituents.

NO! I am not saying that at all. I am saying that this is why Twitter is a de facto public square. I am not advocating that Twitter should be a public square. Frustrating to see a strawman of this sorts. You have completely and utterly misunderstood my points. Basically, 180 degrees opposite of what I was trying to say, may be a failure of mine to be less precise but jeez.

The observation that Twitter has become a public square is undenieable (this is different from advocating Twitter to be a public square. I actually wish it wasn't).

[awb]

> The observation that Twitter has become a public square is undenieable

Please, provide some content besides just a broad declaration. I don’t understand why someone would come to this conclusion.

[systemvoltage]

I thought it was very obvious. Just check your local firefigting department or police. From local Governments to the President, they use twitter to inform their citizens sometimes exclusively. Meaning there is no other place to go for this information.

Unrelated but - Doesn't it bother anyone that it has become a necessity to use Twitter and they demand your phone number to login simply to view the Tweet?

I'd like to see reasons why Twitter is not a public square.

[awb]

> Just check your local firefigting department or police. From local Governments to the President, they use twitter to inform their citizens sometimes exclusively. Meaning there is no other place to go for this information.

I believe federal, state and local institutions have reporting requirements that ensure the information is also publicized on their website or available in paper form upon request. I don’t think it’s legal to put important government info exclusively on Twitter.

Twitter is 1 method of quickly dispensing information, but that information then gets more widely distributed through traditional news networks. For example, I use Twitter almost every day but I never once read Trump’s tweets. I heard about them by watching TV or reading a news article.

When anyone from police to the President need their message heard, they put it on TV.

Also, a town square is for the public to communicate to the public. People seem to use FB, Reddit, Instagram, etc. all for that purpose. I’ll grant that it’s one of many virtual town squares, but it’s not a monopoly, so I think “the de facto town square” is a bit of a stretch.

[dragonwriter]

> Twitter is a monopoly.

In what market? What is the evidence of non-substitution/pricing power?

> When the only way for government officials to relay messages to their constituents is through a private platform such as Twitter

It’s...not the only way.

> it ceases to have the same privilege as a private corporation

First Amendment rights of private parties are not privileges.

> It is a de facto public square.

It is neither a de facto nor de jure public square.

> This is not up for debate.

Saying “This is not up for debate“ does not make your bare assertion into an actually unquestionable position.

[Breza]

I don't think they're a monopoly. If Twitter vanished tomorrow, people would quickly move on to a host of other platforms. That's the sad truth about network effects: they can unravel shockingly quickly. My mayor tweets, but her office also uses email, text messages, postal mail, press conferences, and other tools to communicate.