I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

Every time I see it I can’t get past how hideous it looks. I just don’t get it…who’s the target demo for this thing? They’ve already been beaten to market by non-absurd looking trucks, how big could their market actually be?

I don’t know what will happen with Twitter. Maybe it succeeds, maybe it fails, maybe it just keeps humming along in mediocrity. But what I do know is that wherever it ends up, there was surely a much simpler way to get there.

Twitter is on a mission to become the world’s most accurate real-time information source and a global town square

I think these are both admirable goals, however I don’t believe they can exist in the same space. A town square is open to false informations as much as it is truth.

They’re setting themselves up for failure if that’s their north star.