You invented a fake mental hurdle that you can't jump over. You setup a strawman argument that you yourself can't see past?
Improving human interaction isn't anyone's goal. Imagining there is a "right person" is fake.
Why are people imagining the network which invented contextless hot takes is somehow now the most important public square which must be protected from what? Twitter will be destroyed and we won't have what?
I think you're taking some of my language too literally. I wasn't necessarily claiming that Twitter has some yet to be found soul mate in the form of a perfect owner. I was more suggesting that someone whose behavior has at times seemed erratic and immature might not provide the best leadership for a company like Twitter. Especially since, ostensibly, their business is all about how people present themselves and communicate on the internet.
I guess I thought someone might come along with some technical, economic reasons why his individual behavior and choices might not factor in as much as I imagine. Although I guess the way I began the discussion probably invited misinterpretations.
>Why are people imagining the network which invented contextless hot takes is somehow now the most important public square which must be protected from what? Twitter will be destroyed and we won't have what?
If you don't find it valuable, why are you in this thread arguing about it? For the past year the baseline opinion on HN about twitter was that it should be considered the public square and trump should not be banned (no one would say this specifically but if you poke people this is what they actually care about).
Improving human interaction isn't anyone's goal. Imagining there is a "right person" is fake.
Why are people imagining the network which invented contextless hot takes is somehow now the most important public square which must be protected from what? Twitter will be destroyed and we won't have what?