> This is the problem with privatisation of public services.
The much bigger problem is that not masses of users quit such a problem if such a problem occurs. This is a signal to the market that such behavior is perfectly fine.
Markets have the "nice" property that they typically converge into what people demand by their choices. In this case Twitter delivers what the users chose.
> This is a signal to the market that such behavior is perfectly fine.
That would only be true in an ideal free market: that is, one where quitting did not cost the other users something significant, and where there was a competitor to go to that was identical except for the undesirable behavior.
Due to network effects, centralized communications platforms like this cannot be an ideal free market. Leaving means abandoning your friends and/or your audience/customers, which can be a huge cost.
Furthermore, the major competitors of Twitter (which...also aren't very much like Twitter) more or less have the same problems: inconsistent enforcement of often-arbitrary rules, with a totally opaque appeals process that doesn't necessarily involve humans at any level a regular person can reach.
It's really, really important to remember that all the market theory like this is only guaranteed to apply to a free market. Just because you have "a market" doesn't mean it's going to be any good at capturing the people's genuine desires.
The much bigger problem is that not masses of users quit such a problem if such a problem occurs. This is a signal to the market that such behavior is perfectly fine.
Markets have the "nice" property that they typically converge into what people demand by their choices. In this case Twitter delivers what the users chose.