This is true and I bring this up as well BUT consider this: probably less than 23% of US citizens make 90% of the important decisions for this country (the power law still holds) and if all of those people are on Twitter then OP's point still stands. I deleted Twitter about 3 months ago and it's been great. I can just focus on life and talking to my friends still on the platform I realize just how much of a bubble it really is and how most of the issues everyone gets hysterical about is just irrelevant in my life. That being said it seems to hold an insane amount of influence in the minds of journalists, business leaders, and politicians and thus it is an incredibly powerful platform.

I suppose you could say it's like the public square in that only 3 of the 10 citizens in that mythical town actually go to the square and debate/decide anything, and the rest just stay home.

But I'm not convinced the folks on Twitter truly have that much power because they have those discussions on Twitter (and most would probably have that power whether Twitter exists or not and the discussions on Twitter from those in power seem to be mostly just an extension of their other media presences). It does make some folks more accessible, and their (curated) thoughts more public in some cases.

I've spent some time recently to curate who/what I follow on Twitter to be more relevant and less hysterical (it still creeps in tho), and that has actually made me more likely to actually engage there now, as it's often with things I'm actually interested in.

What if most readers think that writers somehow represent a majority of Twitter or even the whole society? That belief, true or false, would leverage the influence of writers.

Sounds like we need to do a better job of explaining why that isn't the case (at least, that is my belief, I believe the most extreme are those most likely to be prolific on Twitter, not those with the most representative beliefs).

I don't think you can't explain that away, it's like fighting the tide.

A lot of us are afraid to post on Twitter because of the woke crowd and cancel culture.

They aren't going away. No matter who buys Twitter, you're still going to get called out for this shithead things you say on the platform. If you're honestly afraid of being cancelled, then you should support current Twitter moderation, as it's saving you from yourself.

You’re making big assumptions here. You assume I want to post shithead things. I’m actually afraid to simply speculate about the world in general. Countless people are being trained to think a certain way and take offense to free thinking. My concern is not only twitter moderation but confident (useful) idiots in general.

Toxic people are still bad, but at least they now can only operate at individual level and not given enough power to harm the society as a whole.

Who is "us"?

And what exactly are you afraid of, someone judging you by what you say?

People have lost their jobs, gotten death threats, had personal information shared, been swatted, and so on when the mob didn't like what you said on Twitter (or Facebook or ...).

And this week a republican running for office put the faces of children who go to a non conventional school in an attack ad on "woke" that has led to them having slurs shouted at them, people trying to get into the school to film etc. etc. How do you prevent the flipside of your point?

There is no "flip side" to my point. My point was that mob behavior is ugly. Doesn't matter if it is a woke mob or a religious mob or a racist mob or any other kind of mob.

You can only pen your honest opinion under your own name if you agree with the heterodoxy of the authoritarian left. This is what passes for liberalism in America today.

> These are the numbers I point to

IDK, that sounds like more participation (in speaking and listening) than I'd expect out of a literal public square, although not by a whole lot.

I remember coming across street preachers on the Santa Monica promenade. I want to say 10-20 people would stop to listen, where 1-2 people would be speaking (preacher and a possible commenter). I don't even know how to estimate how many people simply walked by, but the audience being less than 20% of that sounds very likely.

TL;DR Anecdotal experience in one actual public square, estimates less than 20% of the physically present public participating, and less than 10% of that speaking.

To me, the fact that petulant bullshit on Twitter and other platforms still makes its way into the real world is even more scary given your numbers. If it was insignificant, I probably wouldn't see people suddenly start burning churches or spray painting ACAB around the neighborhood (at least not so frequently or not so related to completely regionally irrelevant news), or fear that if I say the wrong thing to an overly sanctimonious person I'll get shamed on the internet. Granted, it's maybe not JUST Twitter, but it's a common element that's partially facilitated by Twitter.

I didn't think this was very controversial, but my guess is that people either feel this was irrelevant, they felt personally attacked, or they think I'm exaggerating. For anyone stopping by, all of these things have happened relatively recently, and no I don't necessarily blame Twitter specifically, but news has always been about trying to connect intense emotions with ad revenue, and social media platforms have figured out how to do this at a rate and intensity that's really dangerous.