If people go to Twitter for their acute information needs instead of newyorktimes.com, then they most definitely are competitors.

What you're doing is containing NYT in a niche category of "information for people who believe journalists product high quality information". In this niche, your point would stand true; someone who believes legacy journalism produces accurate and unbiased information is unlikely to even consider twitter.

For the larger mass, its simply not true, and the above niche market is a constantly shrinking one.

like the automobile was a different product category than the horse-drawn carriage?

No. Because if the automobile stopped existing, you'd go back to a horse and carriage. They did compete.

If Twitter implodes, people go to Threads/Mastodon/etc. They don't go to the NYT.

You're saying if one car company fails people will use another car company instead of going back to the horse and carriage

I'd agree with you on that

I know you're trying to imply that Twitter is more advanced than the NYT, but that's simply not true. They're different products for different audiences.

Revenue at the NYT has grown between 8% and 16% yearly each year over the past 3 years. That's simply not what happens to a business that is in decline or being replaced.

But go ahead, believe in your personal narrative all you want that somehow Twitter is replacing the NYT, despite all economic evidence and usage data to the contrary.

it is more advanced in the simple sense that you get much more varied information, perspectives and viewpoints.

i.e. its more difficult to advance a specific narrative or agenda by the private equity owners on millions of people versus a handful of reporters who have to obey their editors