[insane_dreamer]

I don't care what happened to Twitter now that I'm off it, but having an egomaniac not only owning but actively controlling, answerable to no one but himself, the most important digital public square in the world, is very problematic from a democratic (not the party) standpoint.

> Anyone who cares can build a replacement.

Technologically, sure; nothing special about it. But in terms of adoption and reach, no, Twitter is unique and extremely difficult to replace.

[nradov]

Come on, be serious. Twitter/X has never been the "most important digital public square in the world". Time to get out of the bubble and live in the real world. And while I'm no fan of concentrated media ownership, let's not pretend the previous management was any better: they actively censored and suppressed accurate, legal information in order to promote their favored political narratives. That was equally bad in a different way.

[insane_dreamer]

- which other social media network was as globally widespread and used for public communication by public and private actors alike the way Twitter was?

- there's a huge difference between a set of executives who are accountable to a board and shareholders, and a single person who is not, and doubly so when that person is among the wealthiest in the world, likes to shoot their mouth off, has a huge ego, and likes to exercise a great deal of control