The evidence is that there are lots of people who despise Musk and what he has done to Twitter who still use it. That's what speaks to it's dominance and speaks to the network effects it has.
The evidence is that there are lots of people who despise Musk and what he has done to Twitter who still use it. That's what speaks to it's dominance and speaks to the network effects it has.
People said the same stupid things several years ago about Facebook. That is still not evidence of either dominance or vendor lock-in. Its just evidence of either addiction or ignorance of alternatives.
To be clear dominance is where one player owns market majority. That is not Twitter. There is lots of evidence on this. Twitter might dominate Truth Social but it still lags far behind Facebook, TikTok, and probably Instagram.
Vendor lock-in is where the cost to switch to an alternative is supremely expensive, such as rebuilding infrastructure from the ground up. That is radically different than the stupidity of not knowing what your options are.
Too many smart, savvy people who despise Musk stay on the platform for it to be believable that stupidity is the reason.
Non sequitur. Your reasoning is that something must be valid because otherwise stupid things cannot possibly be stupid if reasoned by supposedly smart people. That doesn't make sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
That is not my reasoning. You believe people who despise Musk stay on Twitter because they are too stupid to know of alternatives. You assert this to be true. I believe the reason is something different. We have two opposing beliefs. Neither of us has proof. I believe objective observers will conclude that my reasoning is more likely to be correct. Your belief that it is stupidity that causes people to not go to an alternative platform is not credible is my opinion.