Slight disagreement. I think the Overton window on twitter being very different from the window elsewhere can actually be a stable long-lasting equilibrium. The window is already different with different groups of people in real life, the sorts of things people say online have been quite different from what they would say in person for a long time. Its also very different in different online communities already. On a computer game discord server I am in new joiners often say things that break the sever rules (which they clearly did not read) and seem to be genuinely shocked by rules that seem (to me) very basic.
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.
Slight disagreement. I think the Overton window on twitter being very different from the window elsewhere can actually be a stable long-lasting equilibrium. The window is already different with different groups of people in real life, the sorts of things people say online have been quite different from what they would say in person for a long time. Its also very different in different online communities already. On a computer game discord server I am in new joiners often say things that break the sever rules (which they clearly did not read) and seem to be genuinely shocked by rules that seem (to me) very basic.
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.