> Twitter is is ok to get info really fast, rarely goes down, you have access to all kind of views (from extreme left to extreme right).

Twitter was ok to get (and, equally important in my opinion, share) info really fast; now you need to have an account, be logged in, and be under your meager daily quota to even be allowed to see anything. And everyone you want to share info with needs to do the same. The recent changes have pretty severely undermined what made Twitter stand out among its larger competitors.

The only "extreme left" account I followed on Twitter (Chad Loder) was personally banned by Elon because his #1 priority post-Grimes breakup has been trying to become a made man so the internet fascists will let him into their gang.

There are certainly tankies on there, which is a kind of person that claims to be left but is actually a reactionary.

I think the vast majority of people don’t care much about what happens at the outer bounds of content moderation. Most people go to Twitter for pretty normal internet conversations, which are increasingly difficult to have there: the Blue buffoons being at the top of every thread with nothing worthwhile to say, the constant spotlight on Elon drama, rate limiting, huge jump in bugginess, etc.

FB allows a sufficiently diverse, extreme, and even toxic political environment on FB for most everyone. What kind of content would Threads forbid that is more crucial to Twitter users than a functional service?

Putting the content of people who have to pay for engagement above everyone else was one of the most heroically dumb product decisions I’ve ever heard. I was fine putting up with everything else but then the service just became legitimately not compelling because of that.

> rarely goes down

This would be the site that has been effectively largely down for the last three days?