As a Twitter-skeptic for nearly fifteen years now, the single useful feature of Twitter was as a "global PA system", not a means of discourse. It was a way for people to announce events that might have otherwise gone unnoticed, or engage in public PR battles with monopolies and oligarchies. Which is a threat to the kinds of people Musk wants to be.
Sure, sometimes those public announcements of events were "I hate minorities" or "yo look at my dick", but the platform was a global notice board that served a positive purpose in that narrow definition.
Agreed, if I were to make a "good" Twitter (as in, one that isn't a hellish place) I'd make it so you couldn't comment on any tweets. People could post a tweet, people following that account could view that tweet in their feeds.
Would it have significantly less engagement and be "less successful" than Twitter? Absolutely no question. But it wouldn't be as much of a ridiculous hell of shitflinging and people arguing about stuff with a small character limit and less than ideal amounts of context
Twitter has not been some revolutionary (in the political sense) device since long before Musk bought it, if it ever was. Actually the opposite, it was shown to act as an arm of the states that support the status quo.
> but it sure was helpful for example for getting alerts to breaking news stories and such
Yes, presumably the breaking news that the government-corporate propaganda machine wanted us to see.
Seeing earthquakes and mass shootings and the like a few minutes before legacy media was an interesting novelty but not much actual practical value and not something that will bring down capitalism/billionaires/fascists/etc.
Sure, sometimes those public announcements of events were "I hate minorities" or "yo look at my dick", but the platform was a global notice board that served a positive purpose in that narrow definition.