You are showing your own biases here. Twitter did cease to exist the way it did. In its place is a platform mostly free of censorship and with new features added.
I’d rather see humanity in all of its good, bad, and ugly than have a feed sanitized for me by random Twitter employees who in many cases had their own agenda.
I would rather not see hate speech and incitement of violence online. If you think that Twitter in the form it has now doesn't have a hidden agenda ... That is a very naive believe to be held. Censorship is not the only negative thing that can happen to information. We should all have learned that lesson by now.
> Censorship is the worst negative thing that can happen to information. We should have all learned that lesson by now.
On the contrary, some "information" doesn't deserve the light of day, and we should have learned that lesson in the 1930s and 1940s. The question is where to draw the line.
It’s not mostly free of censorship, you can find many examples of mild left opinions being censored. Harsh epithets against the out group are allowed, up to and including death threats, but mild epithets against the right are removed and often result in bans.
Free speech on Twitter is a joke, and you either are arguing in bad faith or you have no idea what you’re talking about.
And exactly why would I care, what uninformed people at companies and what uninformed politicians do? And what does that have to do with me being in an "echo hall" (I think you mean echo chamber, btw..)? In what way is whatever platform politicians use indicative of that platform not being an echo chamber?
It doesn't matter whether you care or not. Your personal opinion is of no importance when it comes to mass-market social media and other horizontal platforms. The point is that a lot of politicians and business leaders will continue using X regardless of what you think of it.
You still didn't answer the question though. I asked you why it matters, whether politicians make uninformed use of a bad platform, when it comes to me being in an echo chamber or not. I think there is no relation between what silly things politicians do, and whether I am in an echo chamber or not.
I am not sure why I wrote "echo hall". I must have been mentally absent or something. To my own ears it sounds weird and not like something I would usually write. It might have been weird auto correction on phone. I am not sure. Anyway, that is besides the point. I would like to know, why you think, that what politicians do has any relation to me being in an echo chamber or not. I mean, do you define the outside of echo chambers to be the place, where politicians go? Like ... Are they such a massive number of people or somehow indicative of that outside? I just don't get your idea.
If you are only getting your perspective from tertiary sources rather than primary sources, then you are more likely subject to a bias layer from intermediaries.
I really dont think I am saying anything controversial.
