Woah, this seems like a big jump to a form of technocracy / paternalism that I would think would typically require more justification than spending a short amount of time brainstorming in a comment thread why the thing millions of people use daily is actually bad.

Under what circumstances do you feel introducing new policy ideas with the preface "maybe this could be a good idea" is acceptable?

I don't expect anyone important to be reading this thread, certainly not important policymakers. Even if they were, I think it was pretty clear I was spitballing.

Like, banning sites from offering free services if a character limit is involved because high status members of communities you like enjoy such sites

If society's elites are incentivized to use a platform which systematically causes misunderstandings and strife for no good reason, that seems bad.

Now, one counterargument would be "coordination problems" mean those writers would prefer to write somewhere else. But presumably if anyone's aware of "inadequate equilibria" like this and able to avoid it it would be Eliezer.

Let's not fall prey to the halo effect. Eliezer also wrote a long post about the necessity of back-and-forth debate, and he's using a platform which is uniquely bad at this. At some point, one starts to wonder whether Eliezer is a mortal human being who suffers from akrasia and biases just like the rest of us.

I agree it's not the best possible version of a platform by any means, but to say it's obviously net negative seems like a stretch without further evidence.

I didn't make much of an effort to assemble arguments that Twitter is bad. But I think there are good arguments out there. How do you feel about the nuclear diplomacy that's happened on Twitter?