Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nah, none of those networks were anywhere near as influential as Twitter is now. There are also many more people online now than ever before, but nothing fundamental has changed. > Many reporters basically live on Twitter; it's at the center our media world. You mean they "use" twitter? So what? Real journalists are outside chasing down stories in the real world, not retweeting crap on twitter as literally anyone i…
> Real journalists are outside chasing down stories in the real world You're never seen a breaking news story come out through twitter in a way that's not possible without instant social media? > I am not arguing anything even remotely close to this. I don't think private companies should be able to break the law, for example. Missing the point. This is a discussion about theoretically changing those laws. > nobody n…
The same thing is possible via facebook or reddit or even yahoo.com which not only gets more traffic than twitter, but has a more homogenized front-page which would have a bigger impact on how many eyeballs see a story.
> I mean, nobody needs newspapers either. A lot of unnecessary things are very important.
And? Should the government force the newspaper to print or remove specific content (outside concerns with the law)? Now that sounds like a dystopia. If you don't like the content of the paper, you can call it a rag, pick up an alternative paper and move on with your day, that is like the quintessential example against your position.
> Look at walmart. They have half a trillion dollars of money flowing through them. In terms of GDP they would be the ~25th largest country in the world. You think that money doesn't have ridiculous amounts of power just because they don't have a standing army?
And? What's your point? Twitter has 2000 employees and can barley turn a profit, Walmart is the largest employer and the largest distributor of foodstuffs and textiles in the U.S. The differences are pretty obvious. Twitter is irrelevant in comparison to walmart.
> Imagine for a second that twitter grew to become as important as an ISP. Let's say 90% of the alexa top 10000 required a twitter login to use. Or getting cell phone coverage from a national company required a twitter login. Would you still say they're entitled to discriminate?
Well that extreme hypothetical is obviously completely different from reality where nobody needs to use twitter for anything. Literally nothing requires twitter, certainly not something as important as getting phone service or having access to literally ANY other website. Your contrived scenario is a great contrast to how irrelevant twitter actually is.