[bluetomcat]

> Twitter was a unique spot where journalists, celebrities, titans of industries, your family, friends and co-workers, would join a daily mosh pit filled with a mix of truly important cultural moments and the most inane things you’ve ever seen.

It’s a toxic pit where people with boosted self-importance exchange silly reactions and replies, with no meaningful conversation whatsoever.

[warkdarrior]

I can tell you that there are lots of great conversations among people from same domains of expertise or interest. The general exchanges with random folks are indeed meaningless and quickly devolve into rants. But once you find experts in niche areas, it is great stuff to follow, read, and interact with.

[Levitz]

Which wouldn't be half as bad if it wasn't for the potential for echo chambers and tribalism fostering political radicalization.

This seems to be a person that thinks that they had something beautiful and nice that contributed to the public sphere and doesn't realize that for many this event in which twitter may change drastically or die is a good thing either way.

Then again if I was in a server room where 4chan, kiwifarms and twitter were hosted and I had a revolver with two bullets I'd shoot the twitter server twice. I'd be baffled if I ever learned in some quantitative way that the site was a net good.

[philosopher1234]

What political radicalization specifically are you concerned about?

[mcrad]

blue anon - you know those brainwashed radicals that say government and SV has all the solutions.

[watwut]

So basically, you don't mind right wing toxic sites that bread enough radicalization to actually kill people, but you do mind the one platform that actually hosts groups from across political spectrum.

[CharlesW]

That depends on who you follow and how you follow them. If you follow non-toxic people using Lists instead of the algorithmic timeline, it's not bad.

[bmj]

What's most interesting to me is that for both sides of the (U.S.) political landscape, Twitter is a hellscape that is full of nothing but "The Other." From where I stand, both sides are correct.

[seydor]

there is meaningful conversation, as always when a lot of people are in a pulic square. The question is what is driving people to visit the square. Well, so far it has been the general progressive politics causes that twitter's management directly or indirectly supported. Now i don't know if the square has something attractive to keep people there anymore.