Twitter is unique and came about due to specific circumstances at a particular time. It cannot be reproduced. Even if a similar service, such as Gab, grew to the same prominence, it would not be the same as Twitter even if progressives managed to capture it, as is obvious in the case of Gab.
I disagree. All it would take is for athletes, movie stars and rappers to move to a new platform and NPC's would follow them without a doubt. And the media would happily move as well.
Whether that will ever happen is another story, and it seems unlikely now but a lot can change.
My point is that it's definitely possible for a competitor to overtake Twitter, but they need the bulk of famous people to leave Twitter otherwise it'll never happen.
All it would take is... x to move to a new platform and NPC's would follow
That's not the solution, that's the problem; they won't move because any other service isn't Twitter. They like it there (in so far as anyone who says they don't would be ejected from the elite social clique immediately), so why would they move?
Patrick Little was a famous case. Very openly anti-jew person running for political office. Gab chose to censor him off their platform. Gab's owner has since shifted to adopt more openly anti-jewish users and even retweeted some interesting posts. Gab's owner never apologized and invited Patrick Little back. It's a small gesture that would go a long way to increase trust in Gab.
Monopolies are very hard to break too, and Twitter has a monopoly when it comes to that type of social media site. The Irish president, a Marxist dwarf loved by all deviants, has just come out against "billionaires owning social media". The same little runt never said a thing about control of social media before when it was in the hands of people who pushed his views.
What I find fascinating is just how valuable the media is: Social Media including Twitter, legacy media like CNN/MSNBC/Washington Post, Hollywood, etc, yet at the same time how small their valued worth is. All of these outlets combined are a small portion of our GDP, yet wield an immensely outsized influence on how policy is conducted, both domestic and foreign.
Twitter is an example of this. Only $44B, but suddenly the globalists are panicking because it's worth way more than that to their agenda.
That's what I find interesting. Why make all the fuzz about twitter? These people have killed and started these mainstream websites, why wouldn't they just do it again?
Twitter is unique and came about due to specific circumstances at a particular time. It cannot be reproduced. Even if a similar service, such as Gab, grew to the same prominence, it would not be the same as Twitter even if progressives managed to capture it, as is obvious in the case of Gab.
I disagree. All it would take is for athletes, movie stars and rappers to move to a new platform and NPC's would follow them without a doubt. And the media would happily move as well.
Whether that will ever happen is another story, and it seems unlikely now but a lot can change.
It still wouldn't be Twitter, which proudly took credit for the Arab Spring.
Obviously it wouldn't be Twitter...
My point is that it's definitely possible for a competitor to overtake Twitter, but they need the bulk of famous people to leave Twitter otherwise it'll never happen.
That's not the solution, that's the problem; they won't move because any other service isn't Twitter. They like it there (in so far as anyone who says they don't would be ejected from the elite social clique immediately), so why would they move?
gab could have gotten bigger than twitter but they chose to censor. why use gab when I can go get censored on a bigger site if I'm ok with that?
Based on his response I’m going to guess he’s upset that they don’t allow porn.
Patrick Little was a famous case. Very openly anti-jew person running for political office. Gab chose to censor him off their platform. Gab's owner has since shifted to adopt more openly anti-jewish users and even retweeted some interesting posts. Gab's owner never apologized and invited Patrick Little back. It's a small gesture that would go a long way to increase trust in Gab.
bad take, that debate is over. lesson learned for gab
You gotta be really retarded if Gab censors you.
Monopolies are very hard to break too, and Twitter has a monopoly when it comes to that type of social media site. The Irish president, a Marxist dwarf loved by all deviants, has just come out against "billionaires owning social media". The same little runt never said a thing about control of social media before when it was in the hands of people who pushed his views.
What I find fascinating is just how valuable the media is: Social Media including Twitter, legacy media like CNN/MSNBC/Washington Post, Hollywood, etc, yet at the same time how small their valued worth is. All of these outlets combined are a small portion of our GDP, yet wield an immensely outsized influence on how policy is conducted, both domestic and foreign.
Twitter is an example of this. Only $44B, but suddenly the globalists are panicking because it's worth way more than that to their agenda.
That's what I find interesting. Why make all the fuzz about twitter? These people have killed and started these mainstream websites, why wouldn't they just do it again?