Hi, not currently, myself I’m actually in the latter category and don’t have a strong identity online (even as I semi-envy those who do, as it seems like it could provide tangible long-term benefits).
I don’t like the phrasing of “owning the means of production”—no matter where you express your thoughts, presumably you will always own those particular means of production—but agreed on distribution. Still, if one is thinking in terms of “distribution” and “publishing” with regards to their thoughts or writing, one definitely leans towards a platform, be that microblogging or something else; for others this is not even a problem as they rather seek exchange of ideas or the feeling of belonging.
The point about playing with the limits of a medium is appreciated. I suspect if this problem is tackled with an engineering/experimental mindset, rather than identity mindset, interesting results could be achieved. However, on the face of it, doing this publicly seems to require either certain fearlessness or a healthy degree of sociopathy—being OK experimenting with communication, even if it means being fatally misunderstood. (I don’t mean sociopathy in a bad sense—I myself follow a few accounts, many anonymous, who do this kind of explorative posting and I enjoy it a lot. Maybe their owners engage in what @vgr calls “minimum viable sociopathy”.) In this sense, a community provides a shared framework that reduces the chance of this misunderstanding, which could be appealing to some.