1. Good point! Except I would argue the pay system alone in no way mitigates the same thing from happening. We know that paying for a service doesn't guarantee you can continue to do so - the service provider in America has very wide prerogative to refuse service at any time. New leadership, new people making those decisions is what mitigates bias. The New Boy King seems to want to mitigate top-down bias in the platform. That doesn't mean his introductions to the platform inherently mitigate said bias, especially when he gets bored with his shiny new toy and has less and less of his hands on the reigns.

3. Tools can corrupt the wielder, especially the most useful ones. My argument is not old as time and is actually very specific. A real-time communication tool with a restrictive limit on how much can be said at a time without any indicators that your conversant is currently typing is a bad communication tool. It is, in fact, a good tool for miscommunication.

There's a reason why Twitter has been hemorrhaging users for a decade - it's not a good tool or service, and they know it. It's an addictive service, and they know it. Twitter has undergone many changes (specifications in UX) in the past decade, and all of them have been not about changing the platform to bring more people in, but changing the platform to keep more people in. They know they can't bring in more than they lose, so the Twitter ethos for years has been to make the service as mentally difficult to leave as possible. It's a retention-only game, which I would guess is a big part of why Musk got cold feet.

Going in aware of these things takes away a significant portion of its power. But only a fool would believe awareness of a snake gives you mastery over the snake.