This story is unavailable.

There are a couple of missing points in the article.

1) It’ true that all ideological slants, from Breitbart to whatever, would need to participate. It is also true that being a member you would have to follow the terms of service. This presents a solution to one of the biggest challenges today, the proliferation of “fake news”. At the same time, Twitter under this model would be able to clean up abuse, it would also be able to sanction purveyors of fake news.

2) The reason to have the media buy Twitter collectively and run it cooperatively is not for Twitter’s sake. It’s a way for the media to re-establish a workable model. Media and journalism more particularly missed the boat when they lost out on advertising to Facebook and Google. Twitter represents a new monetization platform that could sustain (in part) the good work that journalists do, whether that be CNBC or a freelance writer. The ability to craft a new business model that properly compensates good reporting exists in this prospective business model.

It would be nice to see this conversation embraced by the Twitter team and have them honestly appraise their options. Never have they been more famous and central to culture and politics, and still they don’t look able to meet the expectations of Wall Street. Somethings wrong.

Like what you read? Give Brendan Denovan a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.