This is taking away the very obvious point: at some point, lack of participation alone is seen as a sign of nonconformity. Which itself has caused enough issues for individuals while at least "making it seem" as if the majority are okay with the status quo.

It's one thing to be denied access to these platforms. It's another thing entirely to see a specific opinion pushed on the young and the less critical, trickling down to actual demands, rules and restrictions. These platforms are powerful enough to do so. You can find many examples of misinformation translating to demands in CS and IT alone, and these are still relatively harmless.

"single-handedly" is a red herring. None of the listed entities needs to band up with another to have a great effect on political or social outcomes.

You’re moving the goalposts. There are plenty of entities that can unilaterally have that great effect. That doesn’t mean they’re so vital to public wellbeing that the government needs to take them over or whatever it is we’re talking about.

I didn't set the goalposts :) I just noticed that there is a miscommunication.

The miscommunication is that you presume "That doesn’t mean", whereas the whole discussion is about whether that's desired or not.

I actually don’t think giant corporations are desirable. But that’s not the discussion people are having here. They’re claiming that Twitter is so indispensable, so woven into the fabric of everyday life that it’s tantamount to a public utility, like electricity or sewage.

Which is a perfectly reasonable claim. Rejecting it out of hand doesn't make anyone wiser.

Okay, but you’re acting as though it’s the same claim as “Twitter has a lot of power”.

I’ve explained my reasoning against the utility claim. If you want to defend it, do so. It might be reasonable, but you haven’t offered anything other than substituting it with a different argument.

It's not the same claim as being indispensible, but it's the same claim as being extremely vowen into everyday life. I think that claim reflects what is actually being discussed better. What I offer is not a defense of the claim, but a request to consider the claim seriously.

In the public utility metaphor, utilities were not defined until they became defined. There's no reason to discount a possible category of "utilithing" that shares some properties with the existing one but not others.

It might be that I missed your explanation (was it in a sibling thread?), but in this thread I don't see a consideration for that idea. "They are not so vital" is not an argument against it, but your personal value judgement.

It’s in my root comment in this thread. I’m not giving my personal value judgment — it’s the value judgment of the ~75% of adults in the US who don’t use Twitter. It’s a real stretch to say that something less than a quarter of the population uses is “vital” for everyday life. How many Americans do you think go a month without electricity or sewage?

> it’s the value judgment of the ~75% of adults in the US who don’t use Twitter.

So 5% of all adults? Yes, I just made up that number, just like you did.

Why would I make up a number that’s easily verifiable? https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media...

You served the wrong number: this is the share of population on Twitter. I asked about the share of non-Twitterers sharing your values.

If you don’t use Twitter at all, like over three quarters of adults in the US, you de facto don’t think it’s vital for every day life.

You seem to think about "vital for every individual" when no one said that but you. There were various weaker versions of "powerful" considered.

This discussion isn’t going anywhere; you just keep reusing the same old motte and bailey. Have a nice day!

Well, I tried to save you from fighting a view that no one represents. That only brings further misunderstanding. Good luck.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the majority of those companies already did that with the Hunter Biden laptop story.

If only Fox News is covering something and you’re not allowed to talk about it on Twitter, Facebook, etc. then there’s no effective way for it to reach everyone who doesn’t watch Fox.

Right, which is fine. I don’t watch Fox because I don’t like the content Fox produces. You seem to be interested in turning Twitter into some sort of firehose wherein I’m forced to consume Fox content anyway.

I would say we need less echo chambers, not more. You probably don't think the people that only watch Fox are well informed, and you'd be right.

It’s their prerogative to not be well informed. I certainly don’t think it’s right to force them to watch CNN.

Where does this end, anyway? Should we also force people to consume OAN or InfoWars? Can I get my blog on this required reading list?