Social networks are in practice a natural monopoly. Having the operation of the natural monopoly pass be handled by the state is one solution.

I think another solution is for the state to force the operator of the social network to keep its APIs open. (It's anti-competitive to do otherwise, would be the argument.)

I think it's interesting that there's a Wiki page about this issue.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...

Twitter is a (I think very well designed) forum for public debate.

Good systems for public debate are the precondition for democracy.

In a democracy they are the infrastructure on which all other infrastructure depends. Every subsequent spending decision is influenced by them.

If you turn off public debate nothing will break the next day, but in a decade most people's lives will be misery.

We had public debate long before Twitter existed. [0] I have full confidence that if Twitter were to close tomorrow that we would continue to have public debate, and it might even be better debate.

[0] You might claim that Twitter is superior to other forms of public debate, but then I'd ask if you're really happy with the way politics are going.

'Debate' in less than 140 characters, half of those being # and @ tags, is indeed a vibrant proof of a healthy democracy.

What's next? A well designed debate platform that allows only emojis? A well designed debate platform that allows only meme pictures?

I am, of course, not saying that Twitter is the only kind of public debate, or that public debate did not exist before Twitter.

I am saying that for millions of people Twitter is a unique way to join public debate. Personally, I have interacted with several public individuals who I couldn't conceive of contacting any other way. This is an example of two politics professors taking the time to explain something apparently well known in their circle to me:

https://twitter.com/Jimmytidey/status/757494127537905664

Where else would that happen?

If it does not suit you, fair enough. I find newspapers disinteresting, but I would prefer to live in a society that has them to one that does not. I would also prefer, as with Twitter, that their ownership structure was a little different (I'm in the UK).

I agree that Twitter has design flaws as a medium for public discussion, and I also believe that some of them could be alleviated if Twitter was run was by people with different incentives.

I myself am very happy with the character count, the truth is that the limiting factor is not how long a message you are permitted to write, but how long a message others will be inclined to read. I suspect Twitter is just being honest with us in this regard.

Certainly it is not the place to articulate a nuanced view. It is a place where you can find a unique audience.

If Twitter's current intent is to make it a platform for debate. They make it awfully confusing place for any newcomers. A crummy character count, that forces everyone to speak in acronyms, hashtags, and shortened URL's. It's a miserable experience for any type of dialogue, with various overlays, and drill downs, that honestly gets me lost most of the time. TechCrunch summarized this well.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/19/twitters-new-simpler-rules...

"SIMPLE".