I think one difference is that on Twitter it is now possible to talk about highly taboo statistical data. When people hear about this, they don’t forget it for contexts where it is outside the Overton window to mention them.
It is maybe like in the 16th century, one country (like the Netherlands) allows discussing whether God exists (or, somewhat weaker, whether or not God is a person). As a consequence, people outside the Netherlands still can’t speak about this, but they may have read some of the debates published in the Netherlands, debates which previously didn’t exist at all, and that may well influence what they believe. Which in turn can over time erode the Overton window on discussing God’s ontological status.
I think one difference is that on Twitter it is now possible to talk about highly taboo statistical data. When people hear about this, they don’t forget it for contexts where it is outside the Overton window to mention them.
It is maybe like in the 16th century, one country (like the Netherlands) allows discussing whether God exists (or, somewhat weaker, whether or not God is a person). As a consequence, people outside the Netherlands still can’t speak about this, but they may have read some of the debates published in the Netherlands, debates which previously didn’t exist at all, and that may well influence what they believe. Which in turn can over time erode the Overton window on discussing God’s ontological status.