Re: issues
I hope I will be wrong with my issues with this problem... as I said, I don't really bother with social media personally, so maybe these counter measures will be sufficient.
But I already knew about them, and I currently don't think they will be.
Please note, I'm not saying that the "big corporation" way is the one that would work instead, or that Twitter like it is is fine, or even was fine before the Muskalypse.
Social media are simply going to be a mess whatever solution we find, because of how people work, because of the payoff of spreading disinformation and taking advantage of people biases and fears and desire for social validation and identification with celebrities and all that.
This mess is going to be hard for volunteer workers to deal with, when on the other side you have people motivated by profiting from a large batch of vulnerable "preys".
And to have non-volunteers, you need to have, at least in our current society, a profit-generating plan to pay for their work.
I can hope that altruism will scale, but I don't think it will.
Honestly, if social medias are really so fundamental for so many people (not that I see the appeal), I think they would need to be... socialized!
I think in many situations, like financial markets, public health, safety standards and so on, we need a system were rules agreed upon are imposed for the safety of the collective. With all its failings, a government is the way to do this: sometimes this government will be wrong, sometimes it will do shady things on its own, but still, it's the way we chose to organize all of our activities, with check and balances that evolved over history to address most of the failure modes.
If the government is an oppressive one, or malfunctioning, the government needs to be changed, and that's a different matter entirely, with different problems of its own, but this does not mean that setting up a system independent from it it's a good idea.
To make a simile, we can see all the horrors of purely privatized healthcare, but we don't propose as an alternative to it a free-for-all federated network of volunteer-based clinics where everybody can go and practice medicine regardless their competence, and using whatever substance they think will work as medicines.
Would this means opening an enormous can of worms of possible abuses? Of course, and of course it will be abused... like it is being abused anyway right now.
But at least would be abused by an institution that, by design is accountable to it's population.
And if this institution is currently not accountable, well, it's something its population should change anyway as soon as possible for reasons much more serious than being entertained.