On Tweets, Musk, and FIIK

On the perfect Date, Musk buys twitter and the far right is ecstatic, thinking that not only will libs flee twitter but that Trump will be brought back.
There are a lot of twitter addicts. It has had an outsized impact on the national conversations, deep rooted impact on the divisions in the country, and has become a lifeline for most of the marginalized populations even when they are being persecuted by the system itself by unenforced standards and policies.
Will the left abandon twitter, the single most fun and expressive tool of the current generations — and will those who do so be the crucial 16 to 40 year old users who drive much of the content and such?
If the “destruction” of twitter is a real thing, it will take two to three years, but just how much is the left willing to bend to allow the presence of clear and present dangers?
Welp, Black and Trans Twitter appear to have their days numbered.

Will folks leave?

Minority populations likely will to a degree, but not the larger majority of “liberal” and “independent” folks. Because they don’t have the time to really question the Structure around them or even see it, let alone understand how it functions.
Will people in general leave in large enough numbers to make a difference?

No — it will take time and a series of significant changes (such as restoring formerly banned people).

The question some ask is where? And therein lies the larger problem.
Twitter has shut down any possible competitor in the same way that Facebook did, and so it would need to be an entirely new format and structure and I don’t see anyone doing that in the short term.
What I would like to see, though, is an end to end encrypted social media app that isn’t internet based, in the sense of it has a full internet interface. Something as secure as, say What’sApp or Signal, with a focus on short to medium length postings and short videos (time wise – 3 minutes max), that enables groups to operate and function and specifically enforces tight restrictions on content that is harmful.
But there isn’t money in that for advertisers, which is the business model used and is what allows these companies to flourish.
When you run the numbers, you realize the empty threat that FB and Twitter and TikTok and all the rest have in terms of how they say that if ads are limited or some such that they will have to charge.
You see, there isn’t enough money in a pay to play model. Most folks will value social media at no more than 5 bucks a month *at the absolute most*, and the average is between 1 and 2 dollars a month (12 to 24 USian bucks a year).
That holds true regardless of nation, regardless of demographics, and regardless of degree and consistency of use.
They would make *less* money AND they would have to effectively enforce the rules and policies because now people are paying out of their pockets for this and if a trans woman is shit on she isn’t going to pay and if a Black person is exposed to a racist conspiracy he isn’t going to pay and so forth.
Unless they charge significantly more (9.99 is the usual point examined). There are streaming services that cost less. So there would need to be some sort of additional draw, something that would be of value to people to pay for.
Surprisingly, “peace” is not a great selling thing.
And it is this draw that stops them cold — because the goal is ingrained that they want “more eyeballs” to get more clicks and they only valuate and assign worth based on that measure.
Any other measure is *outside their thinking*, and they do not consider any minority population as part of a larger collective — they strictly see it is as discrete segments that get ever smaller and more useful in that smallness.
The norm is “make an app and get VC funding”.
which is rather hilarious given that most of the “old guard” Social media apps started out as “build a cool app people like and figure out profit later”.
Now it is a business, and profit has to be considered first. No VC is looking to fund an outside the box of money=ad clicks effort.
That model means that any effort must appeal to the broadest possible base, and the way to grow a base is to generate controversy that has anger and passion and is still “legal”.
Going the other way is the way a lot of folks want to go — the fracturing of social media into our private little walled gardens. The LGBTQ app, the Trans App, the Black App, the White Supremacist Nazi app.
The flower lovers app, the cat video app.
Also not very useful under the model — there are a half dozen fairly well know WSN apps, lol. THey need that controversy to generate activity, and none of the targets of those folks go to those apps.
The same will happen in the other groups.
The result is you need an app that is immune to the pressures of advertising, that enforces rules and policies for the whole of the app, and that still lets people connect in a way that respects them — even if it is superficial (for that is where Meta and Twitter and so forth are, but doing it less well than this hypothetical).
And that is a tall order that will only come from a grassroots, non-tech center based direction.