[starefossen]

For me it is how one person can suddenly own an entire social network and dictate the rules as he likes or dislikes. Mastodon it self is more open, the server you choose to sign up to might have content policies in place.

[rjzzleep]

Wait, that's literally Zuckerberg? How was it OK when a Saudi Prince bought into Twitter to make sure Saudi Arabia wouldn't be hit by an Arab Spring[1]?

I don't really like Musk, but is every conversation and topic these days just plain hysteria?

[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471759/arab-prince-bu...

[MrDresden]

Some of us have already left the Meta ecosystem years ago after finally waking up to that.

Now it is time to do the same for Twitter.

[LudwigNagasena]

Yeah, it is not about a whole social network being controlled by a single person. It is about a whole social network being controlled by a single person you disagree with.

[onethought]

But all the social networks are owned by a few individuals. Even twitter before musk bought it was owned by a select few (with real control), and they already dictated the rules based on their own likes/dislikes... that's what started this whole thing in the first place.

[shapefrog]

> Even twitter before musk bought it was owned by a select few

Except it wasnt

[gadders]

Where have you been for the last few years? That was exactly what was happening.

[nathias]

If I could choulse twitter would be a protocol, but to me the worst case is being owned by an anonymous bureaucracy working exclusively to optimize the platform for add revenue, that changes the 'rules' on the fashions of US local politics. Anything else is an improvement.

[hoseja]

It's a private company.

[SV_BubbleTime]

I’m old enough to remember when that was an excuse people used for Twitter. Funny, seems like months ago. Now, it’s a private company but the arguments are all different.