The problem is that there isn’t a singular replacement. People use Twitter for that feeling of being up to date with everything happening in the world. Until one of the alternatives can deliver that on a larger scale, Twitter will retain a considerable userbase.
I’m pretty sure the people who still use Twitter use it for the drama. Mastodon and Bluesky just aren’t as spicy to them. Hell, Mastodon takes setting up to even get anything interesting.
Twitter/X is such a cesspool. The end of nitter is an occasion to completely stop using Twitter, and instead go to the fediverse, subscribe to a newspaper.
Probably lukewarm take: Social media shouldn’t be a utility because it provides no social value or improvement of quality of life in the same way other genuine public utilities like electricity, water, sewer services, or general access to the internet, might. It’s also putting the government in a position in which it functionally would have to provide a platform for everyone equally, Neo-Nazis, climate deniers, anti-vaccers, and every other person with “insert terrible belief here” included.
Ultimately, saying social media should be a public utility is like saying casinos and strip clubs should be public utilities. Just because it’s fun to use doesn’t mean it’s good for society or come anywhere close to meeting the definition for the level of necessity typically attached to something as a public utility.
When businesses ask you to contact their help-desk via WhatsApp, it’s a utility. When people call and message friends, family, and colleagues almost exclusively on WhatsApp or Messenger, it’s a utility.
It’s also putting the government in a position in which it functionally would have to provide a platform for everyone equally, Neo-Nazis […]
Godwin’s Law People preaching [insert terrible belief] on a government platform would be removed and charged for hate speech just as much as they would be if preaching these things in public spaces. If your government gives people with terrible_belief.jpg the chance to preach on public property, that’s not a public property issue, that’s a government issue.
Ultimately, saying social media should be a public utility is like saying casinos and strip clubs should be public utilities.
No, it isn’t. If anything, turning certain popular social media apps into public utilities would limit them from being pure dopamine hits. Let other websites exist to fill the cesspool void. Not the one my grandma uses.
When businesses ask you to contact their help-desk via WhatsApp, it’s a utility. When people call and message friends, family, and colleagues almost exclusively on WhatsApp or Messenger, it’s a utility.
Except…no, it’s not. That’s an extremely naive understanding of what a “public utility” is. A public utility is not defined by how many people use something. Public utilities are essential services that typically operate on economies of scale. That is to say services without realistic replacement and which have large upfront creation and maintenance costs and which only make sense to provide access to a large number of people. You can’t replace electricity with some alternate source of power. It’s electricity. Same for water. They’re fundamental services that are required for other services to exist. Without electricity you don’t have phone or internet. Without water you can’t have sewer systems or indoor plumbing.
WhatsApp, by comparison, is trivially easy to replace. A business chooses to use WhatsApp for customer service. They could just as easily setup a Discord server or just establish an 800 number for you to call. They have immediate drop-in replacements. Arguing otherwise is sort of like arguing that Coke should be considered a public utility because a business serves Coke products. They don’t have to serve Coke. They could serve Pepsi. Or anything else.
Also, your reasoning is kind of skewed, because in order to even use something like WhatsApp, you need other, already existing services. Namely internet access. It makes literally no sense to say “WhatsApp should be a utility” without first arguing that “internet access for all individuals at a national level should be a public utility.” Which I would personally argue is something that does qualify as a utility, far more than any specific social media services or app, and the fact that it isn’t is a huge problem for the United States.
Godwin’s Law People preaching [insert terrible belief] on a government platform would be removed and charged for hate speech just as much as they would be if preaching these things in public spaces.
Oh, okay, “Godwin’s Law” is it? Cool. Here’s an actual law. Like a literal piece of legislation that exists: it’s called the First Amendment. I don’t know if you’re just speaking from a non-American context, or just don’t know how “freedom of speech” is codified into law in the United States. Maybe you’re a kid or something and just haven’t learned that in school yet. But freedom of speech in public places is universally protected under the constitution. Like, there are still public Klan rallies in certain parts of the country. This is what allows those to happen. If the United States government maintained its own social media service, it would functionally not have the power to moderate any content that was not explicitly illegal. Bigotry and hate speech are not illegal under the constitution.
First off, I think you are being very rude. I didn’t call you names or make assumptions, so please treat this with more respect than a Twitter thread.
WhatsApp, by comparison, is trivially easy to replace.
Olvid, a French alternative to WhatsApp, was made in 2019. It took a law passing last month banning all ministers from using non in-house messaging services to stop people from using WhatsApp. I wouldn’t consider that “trivially easy”.
Also, your reasoning is kind of skewed, because in order to even use something like WhatsApp, you need other, already existing services. Namely internet access.
You didn’t mention Internet access and so neither did I. I’m happy we both agree it should be a utility.
I don’t know if you’re just speaking from a non-American context, or just don’t know how “freedom of speech” is codified into law in the United States.
I already said this is a “government problem”. I said this in reference to the US government, because this isn’t really an issue for most countries :/
The squawker seems interesting to me. Unfortunately it’s only available on android and there are some issues probably out of their reach. But since I use it for something basic (literally seeing images of some profiles I follow), it serves me well
Add comment