Because it doesn't solve a problem? That isn't just snark, but a real aspect of competing with an existing product. To compete, you need to be able to solve the same problem in a better way. Twitter didn't really grow from being a solution to anything - it grew from being unique at the dawn of social media. So it is kind of its own thing.
But that's just social media in general. Doesn't mean it can't be valuable.
> Twitter didn't really grow from being a solution to anything - it grew from being unique at the dawn of social media. So it is kind of its own thing.
This doesn't mean that something better can't be made. Lots of people clearly don't want to support X anymore, whether for political reasons or for UX reasons. I don't see why "a better Twitter" is somehow not possible because it wouldn't "solve a problem". Why can't the "problem" be that X sucks ass but there isn't a good alternative?
The question you are missing is why an alternative is needed in the first place? Fine, X sucks. Many of us can agree on that. But what problem is it solving that would force a a replacement to be created if it simply did not exist?
I'm not saying it has no value, nor denying that people find uses for it. I'm saying that without an external problem being solved, building a competitor doesn't answer the original question of... why does this need to exist at all?
I assure you social media existed well before Twitter. Twitter's original niche was called "microblogging", which was novel at the time. It did solve a problem of a lot of fractured discussion and how certain types of discussion would take place and be visible.
It also had the feature that celebrities might respond to you. It was a way to get news directly from journalists. It had its network effect and took off.
