No, it's not "obviously ok" for conversations if "millions of people use it that way". What kind of strange thought process leads to that conclusion?

It's only "obviously ok" if (a AND b), where:

(a) "millions of people use it that way"

(b) it's productive and beneficial when used that way.

The (a) is only enough to show that Twitter serves a need people have for certain coversational structure (short messages). Doesn't prove that it's the best tool imaginable tool for the purpose or thats it's the pinnacle where evolution in such networks stops.

Actually, this very thread started with a FA saying that it's not (b).

People don't generally voluntarily use a service unless it is beneficial to them in some way. It's not like millions of people are being forced to use Twitter for conversations.

Edit to add: also, I didn't try to "prove that it's the best tool imaginable tool for the purpose or thats it's the pinnacle where evolution in such networks stops." I just said it's ok.

>People don't generally voluntarily use a service unless it is beneficial to them in some way.

People are not always the best to judge what benefits them. Case in point: everything from Bush, to heroin addicts, to fast food, to Justin Bieber.

Did I ever ordered you to do anything?

Agency effect. People would use something else if met their needs better and had as many users. (e.g. Facebook vs. Myspace)

That explains why a new user would choose Twitter today. It doesn't explain why people started using it for conversations in the first place, years ago when the network was new and small.

That's kind of non sequitur, isn't it? Thats like saying Myspace is doing a good job of giving users what they want now, because at some point in the past it did.