Dem
51
GOP
49
We don't entirely know what left-wingers want out of a social media platform. We are a bit more clear on what right-wingers want, though. Basically, it comes down to two things: (1) to be able to say what they want, no matter how problematic, offensive, or factually incorrect, and (2) to make sure that non-right-wingers are exposed to such statements.
As it turns out, it is moderately possible to accomplish one of these things, but it's not especially viable to do both. Platforms that allow unfettered far-right speech, from Truth Social to Gab to Parler, turn into far-right echo chambers. Platforms that limit far-right speech, even a little bit (e.g., Facebook), outrage the right-wingers. Platforms that migrate from category #2 to category #1 (e.g., Twitter under the ownership of Elon Musk) drive many non-right-wing users away.
Although the term is rarely used anymore, the descriptor for what happens at sites like Twitter is "microblogging." Thus far, that platform is the only microblogging site to truly reach a broad audience (hundreds of millions of users, as opposed to just millions for Truth Social, et al.). It is possible that the monopoly is about to become a duopoly, however, as Meta has just launched its own microblogging product, called Threads.
Consistent with its being a new product, Threads is a work in progress. It is similar enough to Twitter that Elon Musk is threatening to sue Mark Zuckerberg (even if their planned cage match is not likely to happen, inasmuch as Zuckerberg would beat the tar out of Musk). In some very important ways, however, Threads is different from Twitter. Most obviously, users have no real control over the content they see. Whereas Twitter users self-curate, at least partly, by deciding what accounts to follow, Threads' content is currently controlled entirely by algorithms. Maybe that will change, maybe it won't; as the platform currently operates, it's not a particularly efficient way for a person (such as a politician) to communicate with the people they want to reach (such as their followers).
That said, Threads has significant advantages that other startup microblogging platforms do not/did not have. Most importantly, it comes from the same company that owns Facebook and Instagram, and it is integrated with those platforms. None of the other wannabe microblogging platforms have attracted more than 10 million U.S. users; Threads reportedly has over 50 million U.S. users already (in less than 48 hours), and Zuckerberg hopes that there will eventually be over 1 billion users worldwide.
We can see several possible outcomes here:
It is the fourth possibility that causes us to run this item. Just about everything else in American culture has been affected by the polarization of politics, and since Elon Musk took over Twitter, that site has veered sharply toward being a platform primarily for right-wingers. Obviously, even when it stood (largely) alone, Twitter often allowed for the seeds of division to be sown. Would it be better or worse to have two competing microblogging platforms, one lefty and one righty, and each of them helping to thicken the respective factions' bubbles, à la Fox and MSNBC? We may soon find out. (Z)