> Today, there is no viable worthy alternative to Twitter.
I'm really curious why you think so. On twitter you can read through the feeds of ~300 million monthly active users. You can read their opinions about current events, jokes, whatever thought popped into their head, etc.
So how many monthly active users would be needed in order to get approximately the same level of information/inspiration/entertainment?
E.g. Telegram has ~50 million MAU. Is that not enough? Is the range of opinions expressed by the 300 million so much bigger that you would be impoverished moving to a network that had only 50 million?
Perhaps if you have extremely esoteric tastes, like Baluchi newlywed cooking recipes, but for most views/interests, 50 million is more than enough. Really 10 million is more than enough. This is my version of Gates' Law: No one needs a social network with more than 10 million users, because no one is that unique in their outlook, temperament, knowledge, or life experience.
But if you need huge numbers, there is also Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tiktok, wechat, etc.
This reminds me of some conversations where a friend insisted that they needed to live in a big city, because they wouldn't be able to find anyone to relate to in a smaller city. And I thought, how many thousands of people need to live in a place before you can find a group to relate to? Do you really need, say, 5 million people in order to find some kindred spirits? 1 million wont do?