[akolbe]

I agree that it is a bipartisan problem, but then I thought that was the exact point the article was trying to make:

... many things could change in the years ahead that make the existing status quo more perilous for leftists: Twitter could start hiring conservatives; it could overcorrect in the face of right-wing criticism, or buckle under mounting FBI pressure; national security agencies could embark on a fiercer crackdown of the Left; a Republican could return to the White House; or a GOP Congress could follow Democrats’ example and pressure tech firms to censor what conservatives consider dangerous speech, to name a few possibilities. The best defense against this is to start opposing these trends now, not when it’s too late.

I didn't think they were trying to make the Left look bad. I thought they were trying to mobilise their fellow progressives, to get them to take an interest.

[smoldesu]

There's a simple misconception in the article that might help re-frame this:

> The best defense against this is to start opposing these trends now, not when it’s too late.

It is, ostensibly, too late. We had a chance to protest this, back when the roadmaps were leaking and government collaboration wasn't fully instated yet. But it wasn't just progressives who didn't care, conservatives also rolled over and let this happen. It's both a failure of the Free Market and our democratic process that this happens in the first place.

The point is, now is a hell of a time to start getting mad at government intervention. We've proven that Twitter is a private platform that can be owned and traded like a deck of Pokemon cards. We've proven that every major social media company is in collusion with the government's surveillance agencies. Now, that people discover shadowbanning is a real thing, everyone is expecting riots in the street on behalf of Twitter's users. Really though, if you're lazy enough to stay on Twitter after the acquisition, you're probably not motivated enough to protest it's leadership.

Here are three potential solutions to the problem you perceive:

- Allow courts to compel private platforms to host free speech

- Use the free market to develop a compelling alternative

- Accept Twitter's corruption as a natural process of the free market

[akolbe]

It'll take a while for the dust to settle, I think. For now, it must be said that if it weren't for Musk, we wouldn't have this info. Some people at least will see this as a reason to stay on (or re-join) Twitter.

The nice thing about Mastodon is that it is federated, with servers in various different countries and jurisdictions. As such, it's not that vulnerable to pressures issuing from a specific nation state. I like that about it. A lot of people who feel wary about Musk are there already. That's a good thing.

[smoldesu]

The dust settled, that's what I'm saying. We already know how much people care about their privacy and free speech; they don't.

Also, I have no idea what Mastodon's significance is in this conversation. Did I miss something?

[akolbe]

> Use the free market to develop a compelling alternative

Mastodon is seen as the main Twitter alternative by many. Lots of people migrating there from Twitter.

[moe091]

you're right, I kinda skimmed the article but I see what you mean now.

I am a bit sensitive when articles like this even refer to "the left" or "the right" because I'm so conditioned to think it's another misconstruction intended to create blame and hate instead of awareness and healing/resolution. I should've have commented if I didn't have time to read it all carefully though