If you recognize something is a weapon, you will want to prevent it being used against you, AND potentially want to use it yourself against someone else. They usually go together but not always. You could want people to not have guns without yourself wanting a gun, for example, but still feel "if there's a gun, I want it to be in my control."

Yes, and it's a special weapon such that the more successful one operates it, the more revenue ot generates. A lot better than say missiles for a non violent option.

He wants to open the platform and add transparency features to the actions the platform takes. He also wants to open source the algorithm.

Why is it that people that have an agenda assume that steps towards neutrality are simply an opposing agenda?

Most people in the world don't have subscriptions to the NYTimes, but the influence of that newspaper seems undeniable. Percentage of the global population paying attention seems like a poor measure of influence, not least because actual influence is not fairly distributed through the global populations. Influence over 100 US senators counts for much more than influence over 100 US plumbers.

> Most of the world does not give a hoot

Correct, but journalists, politicians and companies do, which is all it needs. Twitter has been way more influential than it deserves to be for a while now.

It does matter. A lot of people live in a bubble in which Twitter’s loudest voices are a reflection of the “common sense”. That is why so many governments monitor it.

The period between the Arab Spring and Jan, 2021, seems to argue otherwise, no?