51 votes

Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company

109 comments

  1. [33]
    dubteedub
    Link
    Musk is currently tweet-storming right now and laying out his free speech vision, and uh, its not great. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519020176884305920 So Elon is suggesting that the site...

    Musk is currently tweet-storming right now and laying out his free speech vision, and uh, its not great.

    The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all

    By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

    I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

    If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

    Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519020176884305920

    So Elon is suggesting that the site basically completely eliminates its Trust & Safety team and turn Twitter into 4chan.

    Hope everyone is super stoked for a deluge of slurs, misgendering, and harassment to take over the site.

    16 votes
    1. [18]
      cfabbro
      Link Parent
      Don't forget the conspiracy theories, hate speech, misinformation, and propaganda too. "Fun" times ahead for Twitter with Elon at the helm. :(

      Hope everyone is super stoked for a deluge of slurs, misgendering, and harassment to take over the site.

      Don't forget the conspiracy theories, hate speech, misinformation, and propaganda too. "Fun" times ahead for Twitter with Elon at the helm. :(

      13 votes
      1. [17]
        Adys
        Link Parent
        I'm seeing a lot of speculation from everybody about what Twitter is de facto going to become because Musk is at the helm. Really? I mean come on. Do you all really think musk is spending billions...

        I'm seeing a lot of speculation from everybody about what Twitter is de facto going to become because Musk is at the helm.

        Really? I mean come on. Do you all really think musk is spending billions on twitter so that… more people can be misgendered?

        We're back to exactly the same political discussions we were having a year or two ago here: Soon as people see something they dislike in somebody (especially if it's somebody famous), then automatically, that guy is just part of The Enemy, and The Enemy here is the conservative right. Musk is not a conservative. He's pretty hard to pin down, and his political views range from anarcho-libertarian to pretty sharply left-wing, with a few right-wing policies when it's convenient for him. He's all over the place, and this idea that he's a big fan of the conservative right is utterly stupid.

        He's also clearly an agent of chaos who enjoys fucking with the rules, prodding at the system to see what happens. This buyout is a hilarious example of that. Too many people interpret "agent of chaos" as in "somebody like trump". Don't mistake the two: Trump was erratic because he's a fucking idiot, Musk is erratic because he's always pushing on boundaries and seeing where the true limits are.

        I used to admire Musk quite a bit. He's done too many trashy things for me to keep admiring him, but he is still an extremely smart and respectable person regardless. Twitter has a lot of potential and he sees that. It's a communication medium used by governments, brands and people through the world; one that survived through all the other social media, hell it's surviving Facebook right now. If you had asked me in 2010 who would survive longer, Twitter or Facebook, boy would I have not picked Twitter as the winner…

        Anyway, sorry for the rant, I just find these uninformed, knee-jerk takes of "oh, Elon is buying twitter so twitter will become [pick a thing I hate]" really frustrating. I bet you right-wing forums are having the same whiny threads about twitter becoming a "leftist SJW safe space because of Elon", or some other nonsense like this.

        11 votes
        1. [8]
          dubteedub
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Yes. I think that wanting to misgender and harass trans people is a central issue to right wing social media users. Many of them have been getting their accounts suspended or warned on Twitter and...

          Really? I mean come on. Do you all really think musk is spending billions on twitter so that… more people can be misgendered?

          Yes. I think that wanting to misgender and harass trans people is a central issue to right wing social media users. Many of them have been getting their accounts suspended or warned on Twitter and this something that they really feel personally attacked over and feel a broader cultural shift against them.

          I do think that Elon Musk is particular buying Twitter is at least in part because he doesn't like feeling bullied because he says transphobic shit. I am sure that his rapid descent into a right-wing transphobic troll is at least partly responsible for him and Grimes breaking up (see tweet here). Not to mention that his ex is also now dating Chelsea Manning, a trans woman. He also [did not react well to that and responded to the news with more transphobia, as he does.

          If you dig into the replies on his tweets you will see a flurry of famous right wing grifters with misgendering being a main subject of their focus. Example:

          Elon Musk: For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally

          Yashar Ali: Do you consider issues like intentionally misgendering someone to be a political issue, a human rights issue, or the equivalent of calling someone a mean name?

          Tim Pool: Misgendering is overtly political. Conservatives view of misgendering is an inversion of the lefts


          Musk is not a conservative.

          Here is a tweet from yesterday where Elon literally describes himself as a conservative, along with some bonus commentary of him thinking that Republicans have not moved at all to the right over the last decade and a half.

          10 votes
          1. streblo
            Link Parent
            That tweet was wild. Also retweeted by Paul Graham lol. I think they know they're full of shit but all this culture war shit is pretty convenient cover for avoiding tax increases to reasonable levels.

            That tweet was wild. Also retweeted by Paul Graham lol.

            I think they know they're full of shit but all this culture war shit is pretty convenient cover for avoiding tax increases to reasonable levels.

            8 votes
          2. [6]
            Adys
            Link Parent
            He doesn’t. And as someone who votes more liberal than any American even could, I absolutely feel that tweet. Yes the right side has moved as well but the gist of it is relatable. The only thing...

            Elon literally describes himself as a conservative

            He doesn’t. And as someone who votes more liberal than any American even could, I absolutely feel that tweet. Yes the right side has moved as well but the gist of it is relatable. The only thing that isn’t really correct about it is that the center has actually become this massive gap between the two where anyone who isn’t diligently playing along with everything on the extremes is looked down on.

            The American left and right wings have politicised a ridiculous amount of things that don’t belong in politics. The result being “if you vote X then that means you hate Y”, where Y can be just about anything that isn’t at the absolute top of that voter’s priority list, and totally unrelated to their own desires or wishes.

            We’re lucky to have runoff voting in France; we thankfully avoided this because of it I believe. Most of our candidates still have the opportunity to present a full platform and you can still care about multiple issues which would be in a standoff in US politics. But I think a lot of that also comes from our distaste for politicising a handful of things such as gender issues. Which in turns probably comes down to our laicity — religion doesn’t belong in politics, period.

            To put it simply: Social programs for trans minorities? Sure, political. Grammatical rules around how to address somebody? Nope, not the president’s job.

            3 votes
            1. [5]
              dubteedub
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              He literally self-identifies his political positions as conservative. He spends all day promoting conservative political views on Twitter. He only engages with the MAGA / alt-right personalities...

              He doesn’t.

              He literally self-identifies his political positions as conservative. He spends all day promoting conservative political views on Twitter. He only engages with the MAGA / alt-right personalities on Twitter. I don't really know what else you need to see to recognize this.

              The Wall Street Journal just reported that he was literally pressured by a cabal of wealthy "libertarian" businessmen to take this deal, though I am not sure how well that label applies to Peter Thiel, the guy that fueled the online alt-right for years, and the CEO of the altright version of The Onion.

              Before and during Mr. Musk’s breakneck takeover of Twitter, a close-knit group of libertarian-leaning activists and businessmen have been encouraging him to get involved. This group includes the so-called PayPal mafia—former executives at the online payments company who include Mr. Musk, the investor Peter Thiel and entrepreneur David Sacks—as well as ancillary figures like the venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson, an early Tesla investor who once served on the auto maker’s board.

              In March, Mr. Musk placed a call to Seth Dillon, the CEO of the Babylon Bee. The Bee, a right-leaning satirical publication modeled after The Onion, had been suspended from Twitter for a tweet that mocked a prominent transgender female government official as “Man of the Year.” During the call, according to Mr. Dillon, Mr. Musk asked to confirm that it was true that the website had been suspended for the infraction, and mused that he might need to buy Twitter.

              I really don't understand how you can see the things Musk does and read his words and still claim that he is anything but a conservative.


              And as someone who votes more liberal than any American even could, I absolutely feel that tweet.

              I am honestly baffled by your response here that I do not have anything to say. I don't understand how you can maintain this worldview.

              The American left and right wings have politicised a ridiculous amount of things that don’t belong in politics. The result being “if you vote X then that means you hate Y”, where Y can be just about anything that isn’t at the absolute top of that voter’s priority list, and totally unrelated to their own desires or wishes.

              Do you have any sort of examples here? Because the vague framing leaves much to interpretation and misinterpretation.

              Grammatical rules around how to address somebody? Nope, not the president’s job.

              You realize that literally no one is trying to legislate any policies around pronouns right? This is all literally social mores. Again, your views here are so baffling that I am not sure if you are being serious.

              5 votes
              1. [4]
                Adys
                Link Parent
                That isn't what I said. I said it's been politicized. I don't really have anything else to say -- I don't think there is anything that will convince you about the above if you don't see it...

                You realize that literally no one is trying to legislate any policies around pronouns right?

                That isn't what I said. I said it's been politicized.

                I don't really have anything else to say -- I don't think there is anything that will convince you about the above if you don't see it already. This is an outside-in view of the US political system, from somebody who has the immense privilege of having/voting in a different (and I believe, better) system. I wouldn't really know where to start.

                1. [3]
                  dubteedub
                  Link Parent
                  You implied that President Biden was trying to make it his job to police grammar and pronouns. No one is pushing for that. The whole issue from the liberal side is just treating people with...

                  You implied that President Biden was trying to make it his job to police grammar and pronouns. No one is pushing for that.

                  The whole issue from the liberal side is just treating people with respect. Its simply social encouragement to not be an asshole and use the names and pronouns that people want.

                  On the other hand, the right side are trying to demonize not just trans people, but all LGBT communities and label them as groomers, pedophiles, and so on. They are banning and burning books related to LGBT topics from libraries and schools, they are firing LGBT teachers, they are criminalizing gender transitions, and they have stated that their end goal is to fully make gay marriage illegal once again.

                  If you want to call this "politicized" then it is fully the right that are doing so.

                  And iIf you think that these two positions are equal or comparable in any way then I feel very sorry for you.

                  5 votes
                  1. [2]
                    Adys
                    Link Parent
                    I said both wings are doing it. I don't care if it's the right or the left, what matters is the end result: This issue has been politicized. Look how defensive you are just talking to me about it....

                    I said both wings are doing it. I don't care if it's the right or the left, what matters is the end result: This issue has been politicized.

                    Look how defensive you are just talking to me about it. It's impossible to even hold a meta-conversation about it without it turning into you repeating shit I already know or accusing me of not caring. All semblance of nuance is gone.

                    I'm done with the noise here; feel free to DM if you want to talk further, I don't mind.

                    1. dubteedub
                      Link Parent
                      By saying that both sides are doing it, you are equating the two positions. By staying "neutral" on the subject because it is politicized, whatever that means, you effectively agreeing with the...

                      I said both wings are doing it. I don't care if it's the right or the left, what matters is the end result: This issue has been politicized.

                      By saying that both sides are doing it, you are equating the two positions. By staying "neutral" on the subject because it is politicized, whatever that means, you effectively agreeing with the status quo of the far-right targeting and harassing trans people.

                      Look how defensive you are just talking to me about it.

                      Yeah, god forbid people try and protect the rights of trans kids. We should definitely just let Republicans fuck with them unopposed because to do anything to stop them would * politicize * the issue.

                      You realize how insane the position is right? Like if you see an injustice it should be normal to stop that injustice and not debate whether the injustice is "political" or not.

                      Republicans have also "politicized" teaching history to the point that Texas is banning math books. Should we just stay neutral on that subject too for some reason?

                      I'm done with the noise here

                      ✌️

                      7 votes
        2. [7]
          mat
          Link Parent
          Not even close. Twitter only has around 200m active monthly users. FB has nearly three billion.. Twitter is a bit odd. On straight numbers it is, and always has been, a relatively small player in...

          one that survived through all the other social media, hell it's surviving Facebook right now.

          Not even close. Twitter only has around 200m active monthly users. FB has nearly three billion..

          Twitter is a bit odd. On straight numbers it is, and always has been, a relatively small player in the social media space: it's smaller than reddit, smaller than instagram, depending how you do the numbers it could even be smaller than tumblr, and the "ghost town" of Google Plus consistently outdid Twitter on numbers. Twitter just happens to have a lot of very high-profile users (mostly celebs and news) so it has much bigger reach than it should do for it's size.

          8 votes
          1. [6]
            Adys
            Link Parent
            Raw numbers are pretty meaningless. Facebook is declining and that is what matters, but Twitter is still and ever more so relevant. Meta has diversified, they will be fine as a company, but they...

            Raw numbers are pretty meaningless. Facebook is declining and that is what matters, but Twitter is still and ever more so relevant.

            Meta has diversified, they will be fine as a company, but they know what’s coming for Facebook.

            3 votes
            1. [5]
              mat
              Link Parent
              Raw numbers are what pretty much everyone uses to define success, but if you say so. Twitter's monthlies have been fairly flat or mildly declining in recent years as well but I guess that doesn't...

              Raw numbers are what pretty much everyone uses to define success, but if you say so. Twitter's monthlies have been fairly flat or mildly declining in recent years as well but I guess that doesn't matter either.

              Is Twitter relevant? Really? From what I can tell it's mostly self-congratulating celebrities, news outlets and engagement-hungry brands, all held together with wannabe comedians, trolls and propagandists. Doesn't feel remotely relevant when I go there, although I do try to avoid it because it's such a disgusting cesspool.

              6 votes
              1. [4]
                Adys
                Link Parent
                It sounds like your dislike of Twitter is influencing your opinion of it as a successful social network / medium of communication. Twitter is vastly more influential than you give it credit for....

                It sounds like your dislike of Twitter is influencing your opinion of it as a successful social network / medium of communication.

                Twitter is vastly more influential than you give it credit for. It is used by governments, organizations and companies as their comms. The fact Trump used it as his primary mode of communication as a president also changed the game significantly for Twitter.

                What you're saying about Twitter reminds me of what people were saying about TikTok right as it was exploding in popularity. "I'm not part of this movement, and I don't care for it, so this movement is insignificant". AKA how to miss trends in 1 simple step.

                To be clear, Twitter is not very successful as a business, but it is highly successful as a social network. Musk thinks he can turn Twitter's success into a financial success, that is why he's spending billions on it. Not because he hates the left, or whatever.

                5 votes
                1. [3]
                  mat
                  Link Parent
                  I'd argue that Twitter is highly successful as a broadcast network. It's very well suited to people sending out messages. Yelling into the cyber-void, if you would. It's relatively bad - by...

                  I'd argue that Twitter is highly successful as a broadcast network. It's very well suited to people sending out messages. Yelling into the cyber-void, if you would. It's relatively bad - by design, apparently - at being social and that's why I don't like it. I've been on Twitter since a few months after launch in 2006, I have a three-letter username (which I wish I'd sold back when it was worth something!) but because it's so bad at social interactions I don't go there often. I prefer my social networking rather more social. Where conversations can happen in a meaningful and civilised way. Like here. Or Reddit, or Facebook.

                  I also didn't say Twitter was insignificant. I said it's not hugely relevant - Twitter isn't where the kids are, and it isn't where the older people are, and it isn't where billions of people are. Ignoring the bots, spam and brands, and unless the demographics have drastically changed since last I looked into it - Twitter is most popular with middle-aged tech/tech-adjacent people and media (tv, radio, print, digital) types.

                  Finally I said it's not as big as Twitterists think it is. It appears big because presidents use it. But in terms of users, it's small. It does punch above it's weight in terms of reach, but it's low numbers when it comes to users and visitors aren't my opinion, they're just a fact.

                  I don't pretend to have any clue why Musk does anything, frankly. He's some kind of chaotic genius or some kind of self-promoting idiot and which is true doesn't even matter because the outcome is the same either way. But if he thinks he can monetise Twitter better than Twitter has already been monetised I suspect he's in for an unpleasant surprise. Advertisers don't give a shit about anything other than the sort of metrics Twitter does pretty badly on. Metrics which are likely to get worse if Musk rocks the boat too much, doesn't really matter which side of the political divide he pisses off, some people are leaving. But who knows, maybe he will make it better. Stranger things have happened. I wouldn't put money on it.

                  6 votes
                  1. [2]
                    skybrian
                    Link Parent
                    Twitter feels enormous because there's a lot of interesting content there from a wide variety of users, including many people you've heard of, but also many experts you haven't. You can find...

                    Twitter feels enormous because there's a lot of interesting content there from a wide variety of users, including many people you've heard of, but also many experts you haven't. You can find interesting content by people in many specialized fields.

                    The fact that there are other, even more enormous networks doesn't mean it's small, and it doesn't necessarily mean the larger ones have the same variety of content. In the variety of specialized discussion available I think Reddit matches it, but I don't know what else does?

                    I wonder if there are any experts covering the Ukraine war on Facebook? If there were, how would you find them? It seems like it's not the same thing, and sheer numbers aren't the full story. Most people rarely post content that anyone other than their friends would care about. Often it's not even comprehensible to outsiders, which is fine - they aren't writing for strangers.

                    3 votes
                    1. mat
                      Link Parent
                      Eh, I think that's more down to your personal feed curation than anything else. Probably the same as twitter if I bothered to try there. On FB I follow various interesting and...

                      Most people rarely post content that anyone other than their friends would care about.

                      Eh, I think that's more down to your personal feed curation than anything else. Probably the same as twitter if I bothered to try there. On FB I follow various interesting and qualified-in-their-field people who post all sorts of weird and fascinating stuff. I also see shares of the same by my friends - one in particular likes to share in-depth legal analyses of the crap my government is up to this week, which is illuminating but depressing. I'm sure there are people doing war analysis but I don't want to see that so I haven't looked. What's nice is that the discussion is often as interesting as the content, but Twitter is not conducive to discussion because of it's character limit means anything longer than a sentence ends up in multiple posts, which end up with multiple replies (and on and on). 280 characters is generally not enough to express a complex thought or opinion. Then the replies fracture as well, then people reply to the second and third order replies and before you know it, the whole thing is an unnavigable mess. Reddit and tildes and facebook handle this stuff far better. They're better at being social networks. I stand by my claim that Twitter is fundamentally and by design a broadcast network.

                      On usage stats, Twitter is fairly a small player in the social network sector. It just is. 200m uniques a month is pretty low for this day and age. Tumblr does close to that, and nobody would seriously argue tumblr is a big deal any more. Hell, it's in the same ballpark as 9gag or imgur. I can't find the link right now but just this morning I read something about how Twitter had been artificially inflating their monthly user counts above the already low numbers they had.

                      What Twitter gets more than a lot of other smaller sites is shares. I see screenshots of tweets everywhere - even on the TV news. Because twitter is popular with journalists, so they source from it a lot, because it's right there on their phone. But shares don't translate to views. Or, importantly, revenue. Twitter has never made much money for a reason - because it's just not that big.

                      4 votes
        3. asteroid
          Link Parent
          The best take I've seen on it so far is in this thread (worth the time) https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440 I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to Elon personally. I think he's...

          The best take I've seen on it so far is in this thread (worth the time)
          https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440

          ...Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR.

          (This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted)

          The problem with social networks is the SOCIAL (people) part. Not the NETWORK (company).

          I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to Elon personally. I think he's brilliant, he sees the world differently (as Steve Jobs did), and I'm a happy Tesla owner. But "think different" usually means that you are so far outside the box that you are unaware there IS a box, much less that boxes have rules... and that possibly is not the right attitude for an online community. I started out with BBSes and I spent several years as a CompuServe sysop and email community moderator, so I have strong opinions about what it makes them to succeed. One of the is established rules about "what gets you kicked out." I don't feel confident that Elon understands them.

          OTOH he has succeeded in other businesses where he had no experience, including by changing the rules. So I'm not going to declare, "He'll kill Twitter."

          I'm not up to "cautious optimism" but I'm also not making plans to leave Twitter.

          4 votes
    2. Rez
      Link Parent
      He still says he intends to "authenticate all humans". So it remains to be seen whether you will be able to stay anonymous on Twitter, which would not exactly appeal to the types that just want a...

      He still says he intends to "authenticate all humans". So it remains to be seen whether you will be able to stay anonymous on Twitter, which would not exactly appeal to the types that just want a place to spam the n-word. And if you want to spam slurs under your real name... then okay I guess? Sure we can have that on record against your real identity for future employers, lawyers and so on to find.

      But I really don't think Elon cares about that kind of free speech, he just means he wants a place where actual influencers (not Instagram ones) can say what they want without fear of being banned or suspended. So Trump, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, conservative journalists, politicians, CEOs, etc., they get a pass on what they say as long as it's not literally arrestable. But "Joe Who?" may still get moderated and banned if he goes into a flurry of slurs and harassment.

      Free speech for those who "matter" and moderation for the masses. That's the outcome I'm guessing.

      7 votes
    3. [12]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      It's a bit more nuanced than that, in both good and bad ways. For instance, in countries with much more restrictive free speech, Musk is saying that Twitter should fully adhere to those. If in...

      So Elon is suggesting that the site basically completely eliminates its Trust & Safety team and turn Twitter into 4chan.

      It's a bit more nuanced than that, in both good and bad ways.

      For instance, in countries with much more restrictive free speech, Musk is saying that Twitter should fully adhere to those. If in Thailand it is illegal to disparage the King of Thailand, then Twitter should ban any users who tweet negative things about the King of Thailand who reside in Thailand. I think generally that'd be consider not a great thing to do from a Western ideals point of view.

      On the other hand, there is something to be said about having law be the de jure place where society defines what can and can't be said instead of informally creating those standards in a culture and having Twitter moderators be proxy to that.

      You could argue that it is better, if you believe slurs, misgendering and harassment to be bad things, that it should be codified in law as bad things in the US rather than having Twitter enforce them.

      But in practice the US is unlikely to pass anything about anything due to the mechanics of lawmaking.

      4 votes
      1. [10]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        IMO it's not nuanced at all. There are many reprehensible actions and behaviors which fall well outside the purview of the law and legislation, but which still shouldn't be allowed to occur on a...

        IMO it's not nuanced at all. There are many reprehensible actions and behaviors which fall well outside the purview of the law and legislation, but which still shouldn't be allowed to occur on a social media platform (especially one as large as Twitter). So claiming that unless it's illegal it should be allowed is a total cop-out, and still totally irresponsible.

        E.g. Insulting, bullying, or telling someone to "KYS" (kill yourself) will likely never be legislated against, but it still does tangible harm especially if allowed to occur at scale. Same goes for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

        11 votes
        1. [9]
          stu2b50
          Link Parent
          I don't see how that doesn't make it nuanced. To see it as just opening the flood-gates is a very US-centric point of view, since the US has abnormally strong freedom of speech laws. If Twitter...

          I don't see how that doesn't make it nuanced. To see it as just opening the flood-gates is a very US-centric point of view, since the US has abnormally strong freedom of speech laws.

          If Twitter were to operate in North Korea, you'd be able to tweet about almost nothing except national propoganda according to Elon's wishes, for example. Even in less extreme cases, much of the world has very restrictive speech laws, usually to protect the ruling body. India is a massive market, and Modi once raided Twitter offices to get them to delete tweets.

          That's not to say that this is a good policy - if anything it indicates that it's even worse, since adhering to laws about speech in most of the world is bad, per western ideals, not to mention a logistical nightmare since it would necessitate geofencing tweets on a national level.

          But the net effects of such a policy going forward is way more than just that less people will get banned by Twitter for things that they tweet. Some people will get banned more.

          It actually opens up entire barrel of worms of all kinds, especially on an implementation level. What would happen to pictures of Muhammad, illegal in many countries? Would those tweets just be blocked in those countries? Or just for people making the tweets in those countries?

          2 votes
          1. [6]
            cfabbro
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            It's not nuanced because it's effectively Twitter washing their hands of all responsibility. There is nothing nuanced about that stance. The only "nuance" stems from them deciding how best to deal...

            It's not nuanced because it's effectively Twitter washing their hands of all responsibility. There is nothing nuanced about that stance. The only "nuance" stems from them deciding how best to deal with the repercussions of that decision, and difficulty in implementing it.

            6 votes
            1. [2]
              dubteedub
              Link Parent
              They could always just look at 8chan as an example. Their anything goes thats not illegal policy just made the site a fucking breeding ground of extremism, conspiracy theories, hate, and violence...

              They could always just look at 8chan as an example. Their anything goes thats not illegal policy just made the site a fucking breeding ground of extremism, conspiracy theories, hate, and violence leading to multiple mass shootings. Not to mention all the child porn. The site lost all financial backing, no one wamted to touch it with a 50 foot pole, and it went under. When you promote a place as fuck it anything goes, it goes to shit real quick.

              There's even numerous examples on reddit for all the various free speech zone subreddits that all inevitably get banned because white supremacists, fascists, and conspiracy theorists know that they can use those places to promote their ideologies and gain a following.

              I truly think anyone that believes a "free speech" policy is a good way to run any community, let alone a massive globe spanning communications platform like twitter, is just trying to provide cover for their bigotry.

              11 votes
              1. TavisNamara
                Link Parent
                That's because they ARE trying to provide cover for bigotry. Freedom of expression (what we in the US usually refer to as "free speech") doesn't include bigotry. Or hate. Or death threats. Or...

                That's because they ARE trying to provide cover for bigotry. Freedom of expression (what we in the US usually refer to as "free speech") doesn't include bigotry. Or hate. Or death threats. Or misinformation.

                It is the free exchange of ideas. But there are no ideas in hate- only hate. There are no ideas in death threats- only death threats. There are no ideas in misinformation- only lies. Misgendering someone, or calling them the n-word, or the r-word, or the t-slur, or any of a hundred other things doesn't contribute to anything. It's not an idea- it's bigotry. None of it has any inherent value. In fact, it has negative value, as bigotry, death threats, misinformation, and so on damage the existing conversation and drive valuable ideas away. By allowing those negatives to thrive... Well, yeah, you always get 8chan. Or Parler. Or the far right subreddits. Those zones never actually have a conversation going on unless they get tricked into it. It's always the most echo chamber of echo chambers with nothing but vitriol and violence as their core tenets.

                In some cases, those who speak out for "free speech" are just unaware and uninformed. But I don't have the slightest hope of that for Musk because he paints himself as a "free speech absolutist"... While union busting, as well as severely limiting workers' speech, customers' speech, trying to shut down the free press, directing his fans to edit wikis, cutting contact with companies in retaliation for their speech, hiding business details, and more. He, as well as Tesla, has been taken to court over a huge variety of different issues directly related to free speech, and the only times when he's been in support of speech is when he gets to call an innocent man a pedophile.

                7 votes
            2. [3]
              stu2b50
              Link Parent
              That doesn’t parse as a sentence. The word nuance does not exclusively align itself to policy - that would be weird. I was specifically talking about the effects of such a decision, hence the...

              It's not nuanced because it's effectively Twitter washing their hands of all responsibility.

              That doesn’t parse as a sentence. The word nuance does not exclusively align itself to policy - that would be weird.

              I was specifically talking about the effects of such a decision, hence the quote in the first reply, because the assumption that the effects would only, or mainly, be to allow more speech on Twitter is, I think, wrong. It would cause some speech to be more restricted, some to be less restricted, some to be in a confusing grey area.

              You almost exclusively see the less restrictive side, but if people were worried about China soft pressuring companies into censuring select things, always following local laws would mean that all regimes can quite explicitly censure anything they want from Twitter.

              5 votes
              1. TemulentTeatotaler
                Link Parent
                *like cfabbro this is more at the topic than your post I felt the posted tweet/other things I've heard from Musk say lack nuance for a few reasons: It doesn't address the intersection of different...

                *like cfabbro this is more at the topic than your post

                I felt the posted tweet/other things I've heard from Musk say lack nuance for a few reasons:

                • It doesn't address the intersection of different countries. People in Thailand can talk to people all over the world. What's going to show in a thread when person in country A is replying to someone from B who is banned in C?

                • There is an intentionally ignored distinction between government restrictions on speech and private/corporate restrictions. The gov't banning you from criticizing the king has little relevance to a family restaurant that doesn't want you shouting racial slurs for the comfort of other diners. Musk tries to reduce all modes of speech and entities/rules that may control said speech into a conversation about "Free Speech".

                • Laws themselves are interpreted and messy. How would Musk-era Twitter--ported to the U.S. circa 1942-- have banned people for "fighting words" like calling a marshal a "damned racketeer"? Just say "go to the court" for the millions of questionably inciting phrases? Do nothing even with the most clear violations?
                  In subsequent years when that overshoot gets weakened ("white son of a bitch, I'll kill you" / "priests rape boys" / <ones I'm leaving unsaid> weren't fighting words) would people retroactively get unbanned?

                • A speaker over time is not addressed. If you're an edgy 13 year old who spams cartel snuff videos do you get banned, or do you just get those posts removed? If you get banned is it forever? I don't really think this is the purview of laws.

                • More abstract, but he doesn't address other factors that impede speech. Chilling effects have obvious impact and robs vulnerable populations of their speech, but this requires a more complex view ala negative/positive liberty.
                  Game lobbies where the first reaction to having a black/female sounding voice is harassment will have measurably less speech from those people. Union-busting or trying to pay a kid not to track your private jet attempts to silence speech.
                  Removing anonymity/pseudonymity silences a large number of people, and without that (probably even with it) getting rid of bots is untenable.

                • Speech online has no real world corollary and it has issues unique to it. Legal systems and society at large is struggling to understand and adjust a still unsettled landscape of modern communication.

                  • A search engine like Google lends credibility to the top X results they rank and less then a handful of people look to the second page.
                    When someone searches for UFO coverups they're forced by their function to choose who to give a megaphone to (e.g., authoritaties like .govs, popular sites, sites that optimize engagement, conspiracy sites in line with that users profile, an intentional medley of options for "balance", etc.). When they say there are 235M results that just means they're de facto censoring 235M - 5 results.

                  • As mentioned at the start you can present a conversation in complicated ways (e.g., shadowbanning or snipping out parts of a thread based on geography), and some of those will--in effect-- censor speech.

                  • Are bots like the one that tracks his jet an extension of free speech? Where on the spectrum between an automated "on vacation" message to a botnet that spams a crypto scam is a line drawn?
                    Is hiring a troll farm to coordinate posts kosher? A PR firm? Mass flagging for posts that may be either sneakier illegal speech vs intentional suppression?

                7 votes
              2. cfabbro
                Link Parent
                Fair enough. It's pretty clear we're talking about two different things with regards to what is or isn't nuanced about it.

                Fair enough. It's pretty clear we're talking about two different things with regards to what is or isn't nuanced about it.

                3 votes
          2. [2]
            rish
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            No that is not true. I'd to login to make a reply here, These days I rarely participate in Tildes after that stay away from screen project. Work has taken a toll and there is no work from home...

            Modi once raided Twitter offices to get them to delete tweets.

            No that is not true.

            I'd to login to make a reply here, These days I rarely participate in Tildes after that stay away from screen project. Work has taken a toll and there is no work from home anymore. Anyway not related to topic. I was saying Modi government did not raid Twitter headquarters to delete some tweets. Not at all what happened.

            So Twitter has that feature where they can flag any tweet for spreading misinformation and you can click on there to read up more on real authentic information verified by trustworthy sources. Twitter is not doing the legwork here, they rely on third parties to rectify the misinformation and flag the tweets based on that.

            I'm not going into the events before the tweets were flagged misinformation because that is too political and not important here. For a basic understanding current Indian government is headed by group of parties where BJP (Modi's party) has majority seats and Congress is the opposition leader. Now a spokesperson of BJP made a tweet against the opposition party Congress related to ongoing political event. This tweet is then flagged by Twitter as misinformation - based on complaint made by the opposition party Congress. This obviously raised questions what information Congress gave Twitter to take this action. Twitter doesn't respond. A notice is issued to Twitter over explanation for its manipulated tag on the tweets. It's interesting that Twitter had no other source other then Congress party denying the claims made in tweet at the time. There sole source was Congress party on whom the acquisition was made which they didn't accept. Investigation police demands Twitter to share the material information they have to help with the investigation. They send them a notice too.

            At this point we get to the raid thing that was initially believed to be related with above stuff. It was shown with sensalised headlines and shaky blurry visuals. A day later it was clarified to be not a raid but merely a routine process.

            News media went silent quickly and further reporting was not given same prime time treatment. But the damage was already done. International media published the news with further adding their own takes.

            IMO Twitter was at fault here for taking side of an opposition party of biggest democracy in World based solely on the word of the said opposition party and not properly communicating with Government when asked for clarification.

            2 votes
            1. TheJorro
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              You can't ignore the nature of the tweets in question that were flagged and acted upon. They were straight up politically-fuelled misinformation that tried to suggest that Congress was behind some...

              You can't ignore the nature of the tweets in question that were flagged and acted upon. They were straight up politically-fuelled misinformation that tried to suggest that Congress was behind some kind of conspiracy to make BJP look bad when it came to their COVID response. BJP is not some poor group that got spurned by a manipulated content report, they were caught outright lying about their political opponents and flagged accordingly for it, then they raised a huge stink over getting caught and sent police into the offices. What "routine process" could that possibly be? Where else was it ever implemented?

              The Tweet flagged in question was an allegation from a BJP spokesperson that Congress had made some kind of "toolkit" to make Modi's government look bad when they hadn't had any such thing, and the BJP tweets included doctored images that were confirmed by a third party to be falsified. Congress was in the right to have it flagged as misinformation, and Twitter was right to flag the lying BJP tweets accordingly. This isn't a case of who said what, it's a case of who's clearly lying about someone else.

              Neither Congress not Twitter were in the wrong here, and it's absolute nonsense that a police visit like that is "routine process". What kind result is said process supposed to have beyond being an intimidation tactic? Were the police just going to go cubicle-by-cubicle and make sure nobody was hiding a Congress member under their desk or something?

              4 votes
      2. dubteedub
        Link Parent
        Please explain why you think the law should be used as a moral standard for what is acceptable. That and it would also be a violation of the first amendment.

        On the other hand, there is something to be said about having law be the de jure place where society defines what can and can't be said instead of informally creating those standards in a culture and having Twitter moderators be proxy to that.

        Please explain why you think the law should be used as a moral standard for what is acceptable.

        You could argue that it is better, if you believe slurs, misgendering and harassment to be bad things, that it should be codified in law as bad things in the US rather than having Twitter enforce them.

        But in practice the US is unlikely to pass anything about anything due to the mechanics of lawmaking.

        That and it would also be a violation of the first amendment.

        7 votes
    4. skybrian
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Musk says a lot of things and it's not always predictive of what he does, so I don't know, wait and see.

      Musk says a lot of things and it's not always predictive of what he does, so I don't know, wait and see.

      2 votes
  2. [12]
    xnaas
    Link
    To skip The Verge: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elon-musk-to-acquire-twitter-301532245.html
    14 votes
    1. [2]
      xnaas
      Link Parent
      Personal comment: I'm not surprised it's happening, just surprised it's actually happening so soon. The board seemed like they were ready to go against the wishes of their shareholders and I was...

      Personal comment: I'm not surprised it's happening, just surprised it's actually happening so soon. The board seemed like they were ready to go against the wishes of their shareholders and I was expecting this to get dragged out for months or years or something. 😅

      18 votes
      1. skybrian
        Link Parent
        It may have been negotiating tactics.

        It may have been negotiating tactics.

        4 votes
    2. [9]
      KapteinB
      Link Parent
      Why don't we like The Verge?

      Why don't we like The Verge?

      9 votes
      1. [2]
        ruspaceni
        Link Parent
        I might be mistaken but I think on tildes that habit is more about identifying a better primary source vs disliking the outlet for any particular reason. I was always aware that news stories get...

        I might be mistaken but I think on tildes that habit is more about identifying a better primary source vs disliking the outlet for any particular reason.

        I was always aware that news stories get re-reported all the time, but before seeing it get pointed out on tildes I had no idea how much of it is lost in translation.

        14 votes
      2. [5]
        HotPants
        Link Parent
        Musk doesn't have total control yet. Shareholders still need to vote and approve. The verge has a click-baity, sensationalist title and lacks the meaty content that the news source has.

        Musk doesn't have total control yet.

        Shareholders still need to vote and approve.

        The verge has a click-baity, sensationalist title and lacks the meaty content that the news source has.

        Promptly after filing the definitive Transaction Proxy Statement with the SEC, Twitter will mail the definitive Transaction Proxy Statement and a WHITE proxy card to each stockholder entitled to vote at the special meeting to consider the Transaction.

        9 votes
        1. [4]
          HotPants
          Link Parent
          Matt Levine lays out a number of things that need to happen before Musk gets "total control." In particular he notes Tesla just closed at $876.42, down from about $1,000. So Musk might be...

          Matt Levine lays out a number of things that need to happen before Musk gets "total control."

          In particular he notes

          In rough numbers, if Tesla’s stock price drops below about $740 before this deal closes, Musk might have some trouble finding enough collateral to take out the full margin loan.

          Tesla just closed at $876.42, down from about $1,000.

          So Musk might be struggling to get his finance.

          Another risk, that Levine hasn't drilled into, is if the deal goes through, then what if Tesla drops down to say $500...

          All of a sudden, Musk is looking over leveraged, anyone who loaned him money against $1000/share is looking to do a margin call, presumably forcing Musk to refinance or sell a metric shit ton of Tesla shares at the worst possible time.

          12 votes
          1. [3]
            skybrian
            Link Parent
            Tesla already dropped more than double Twitter's market cap, it says here. Musk blames Bill Gates for shorting it, so if that's true, I guess Gates made money?

            Tesla already dropped more than double Twitter's market cap, it says here.

            Musk blames Bill Gates for shorting it, so if that's true, I guess Gates made money?

            4 votes
            1. [2]
              HotPants
              Link Parent
              It says Tesla dropped over $100 billion in market cap. Musk owns 17% of Tesla. Musks net worth dropped about $20 billion. That is more than the $12 billion he needs to raise to buy TWTR according...

              It says Tesla dropped over $100 billion in market cap. Musk owns 17% of Tesla. Musks net worth dropped about $20 billion. That is more than the $12 billion he needs to raise to buy TWTR according to Matt Levine. But he still should be fine...

              Musk owns about 172.6 million Tesla shares and has pledged about 88.3 million of them for other loans, leaving about 84.3 million free shares. A $12.5 billion loan at a 20% loan-to-value ratio requires a pledge of $62.5 billion of stock; those 84.3 million shares will be worth $62.5 billion at a price of $741.60 per share. But this omits his stock options to buy tens of millions more shares, some at very low exercise prices; I suspect that even in the $600s he could probably scrape together enough stock to do the margin loan.

              Did Musk really blame Gates? Gates being short half a billion Tesla doesn't do much to the price unless Gates changes his short level significantly. As of late last month, TSLA was short 3% of float, which isn't much as a percentage, but was still a staggering $30 billion dollars short. The only thing we know for certain that changed recently, was Musk made some noise about Gates being short Tesla. Given how Musks tweets seem to drive TSLA's price, it kinda feels like Musk is more to blame than Gates?

              Word I read was that TSLA dropped mostly on fears that Musk would have to sell TSLA to buy TWTR due to being over leveraged. It would be kind of funny if TSLA dropped so much that Musk was unable to get the loans to buy TWTR. Then presumably once investors felt safe that Musk wasn't going to buy TWTR, then TSLA would rise back to the point where Musk would be able to buy TWTR again. It's kind of a catch 22. Musk can afford to buy TWTR, as long as he doesn't actually try to buy TWTR.

              7 votes
              1. skybrian
                Link Parent
                Apparently he thinks that shorting Tesla is bad, and Bill Gates is doing it. Other than that, well, Musk says stuff. Who knows what he really believes?

                Apparently he thinks that shorting Tesla is bad, and Bill Gates is doing it. Other than that, well, Musk says stuff. Who knows what he really believes?

                4 votes
      3. lou
        Link Parent
        I like The Verge. They have good articles. However, they sometimes report on articles from other news organizations. In those cases, it's often more valuable reading their source instead.

        I like The Verge. They have good articles. However, they sometimes report on articles from other news organizations. In those cases, it's often more valuable reading their source instead.

        6 votes
  3. [2]
    babypuncher
    Link
    The Elongated Muskrat's rhetoric about free speech makes me nervous. On the other hand, it has talked about actually doing something about bots. Taking the company private removes a huge obstacle...

    The Elongated Muskrat's rhetoric about free speech makes me nervous. On the other hand, it has talked about actually doing something about bots. Taking the company private removes a huge obstacle that was preventing the current leadership from taking the problem seriously, which is the need to inflate the daily active user count as much as possible to make outsiders think the company is doing well.

    12 votes
    1. teaearlgraycold
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I’m not a (edit: regular) Twitter user, but it will be fun to watch how human verification affects the platform.

      I’m not a (edit: regular) Twitter user, but it will be fun to watch how human verification affects the platform.

      4 votes
  4. [31]
    dubteedub
    Link
    Whelp. This really sucks. What are some good alternatives to Twitter?

    Whelp. This really sucks.

    What are some good alternatives to Twitter?

    8 votes
    1. [5]
      xnaas
      Link Parent
      Nothing. Twitter is Twitter because it has everyone (not me, but you know) on it. There are plenty of options to get a social media experience that partially mimics Twitter (Mastodon, mostly), but...

      What are some good alternatives to Twitter?

      Nothing. Twitter is Twitter because it has everyone (not me, but you know) on it. There are plenty of options to get a social media experience that partially mimics Twitter (Mastodon, mostly), but there's isn't really a comparable alternative.

      Edit: Slight vocab change.

      26 votes
      1. [3]
        Omnicrola
        Link Parent
        It feels really pretentious of me, but having gone this long without using Twitter it feels like I made a good decision by accident (Like never starting smoking before they figured out that...

        Nothing.

        It feels really pretentious of me, but having gone this long without using Twitter it feels like I made a good decision by accident (Like never starting smoking before they figured out that smoking was bad for you.). All I ever hear is the negative effects of Twitter. I'm sure there are some upsides, but as whole, if Twitter simply imploded and disappeared one day, it seems like it would be a net positive.

        15 votes
        1. cloud_loud
          Link Parent
          I definitely regret using twitter back in ‘18 and continuing to use it until ‘20. It would have been much better for my mental well-being to have never logged on.

          I definitely regret using twitter back in ‘18 and continuing to use it until ‘20. It would have been much better for my mental well-being to have never logged on.

          9 votes
        2. xnaas
          Link Parent
          I technically had a Twitter account for a while, but didn't really use it. It's been deleted for quite some time, now. I found nitter years ago and spun up my own (public!) instance. I follow the...

          I technically had a Twitter account for a while, but didn't really use it. It's been deleted for quite some time, now.

          I found nitter years ago and spun up my own (public!) instance. I follow the few things I'm interested in (some artists, weather stuff, etc.) via RSS and have comments and replies and such disabled in case I do actually load a nitter page vs just viewing in FreshRSS (web) or Reeder (iOS). I get what I want with all the cancer missed. \o/

          3 votes
      2. moocow1452
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        If you have to have a client, your best bet would be Fritter on Android, it's bar none one of the better clients I've used, and it doesn't even need an account to browse or build a feed.

        If you have to have a client, your best bet would be Fritter on Android, it's bar none one of the better clients I've used, and it doesn't even need an account to browse or build a feed.

        3 votes
    2. [4]
      drannex
      Link Parent
      I know people make a mockery of people like me who say this, but Tumblr. It's the chill microblog platform that everyone has always wanted Twitter to be. They had a few rough years, but everyone...

      I know people make a mockery of people like me who say this, but Tumblr. It's the chill microblog platform that everyone has always wanted Twitter to be. They had a few rough years, but everyone who uses it is increasingly chill and fun to talk with. Has far better privacy, and is just a cool place these days.

      But even then, I strongly believe that social media is a detriment. Tumblr is just the farthest thing from an algorithm based service out there with the least amount of nazis.

      13 votes
      1. Prometheus
        Link Parent
        That last part is key. I remember innocently exploring various alternative social media platforms a few years back; I was not prepared for the sheer volume of nazis. Well, nazis, and flat earthers...

        That last part is key. I remember innocently exploring various alternative social media platforms a few years back; I was not prepared for the sheer volume of nazis. Well, nazis, and flat earthers and school shooting conspiracists and essential oil MLM sellers.

        A lot of these alternative platforms seem to attract a very particular genre of user that rightfully didn't get anywhere on the more popular sites.

        I low-key like tumblr though.

        8 votes
      2. cloud_loud
        Link Parent
        I tried using tumblr for a bit but I just could not for the life of me figure out how to use it. The only thing I saw were memes about Bohemian Rhapsody and Venom being liked there. Didn't know...

        I tried using tumblr for a bit but I just could not for the life of me figure out how to use it.

        The only thing I saw were memes about Bohemian Rhapsody and Venom being liked there. Didn't know how to go beyond that.

        3 votes
      3. Whom
        Link Parent
        I don't use Tumblr anymore because of privacy stuff but I really enjoyed my time with it. Its setup as a network of true blogs is really cool, even if a lot of the userbase doesn't quite use their...

        I don't use Tumblr anymore because of privacy stuff but I really enjoyed my time with it. Its setup as a network of true blogs is really cool, even if a lot of the userbase doesn't quite use their blogs like that.

        3 votes
    3. [10]
      Eric_the_Cerise
      Link Parent
      I've never used Twitter, so I can't give a real comparison, but I've been on Mastodon for quite awhile, and I've been happy with that. Shop around for a public server that sounds copacetic to your...

      I've never used Twitter, so I can't give a real comparison, but I've been on Mastodon for quite awhile, and I've been happy with that.

      Shop around for a public server that sounds copacetic to your interests, but it's federated, so you can still follow and chat with anyone on any public server, so which "home" you choose isn't critical.

      6 votes
      1. Whom
        Link Parent
        And it's super easy to transfer your profile and followers when you move!

        And it's super easy to transfer your profile and followers when you move!

        4 votes
      2. [8]
        skybrian
        Link Parent
        Maybe I've been unlucky, but the first server I picked disappeared without notice and the second one started having brownouts after a while. So if you don't know who is running the server, I...

        Maybe I've been unlucky, but the first server I picked disappeared without notice and the second one started having brownouts after a while. So if you don't know who is running the server, I suggest sticking to mastodon.social.

        4 votes
        1. [7]
          Eric_the_Cerise
          Link Parent
          That is a real risk. Literally anyone can spin up a server, offer it to the public to join, and then ... anything. And nothing wrong with mastodon.social (except it is crowded and, 4 years ago at...

          That is a real risk. Literally anyone can spin up a server, offer it to the public to join, and then ... anything.

          And nothing wrong with mastodon.social (except it is crowded and, 4 years ago at least, had its own occasional issues with server overloads). However, there are many other well-established, well-supported instances out there, and for many, window-shopping for a more like-minded home server can be fun.

          4 votes
          1. [3]
            kfwyre
            Link Parent
            Question for you/the crowd: what does data privacy look like with Mastodon (and other federated services)? The network of instances and the fact that you can choose your own (like email) is super...

            Question for you/the crowd: what does data privacy look like with Mastodon (and other federated services)? The network of instances and the fact that you can choose your own (like email) is super cool, but doesn’t that also mean my data is ultimately spread around to a lot of different homes? If I delete something on my home instance, is that deletion also propagated to other instances, or does the deleted data live on in all the instances it traveled to? Could someone set up an instance strictly for the purpose of maliciously harvesting as much data on others as possible?

            5 votes
            1. csos95
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              When you delete an object (such as a blog, picture, or video), the server your account is on sends a delete activity for that object to the servers that it sent the initial create activity to. Of...

              If I delete something on my home instance, is that deletion also propagated to other instances, or does the deleted data live on in all the instances it traveled to?

              When you delete an object (such as a blog, picture, or video), the server your account is on sends a delete activity for that object to the servers that it sent the initial create activity to.

              Of course, it is up to the software those servers are using to actually delete that message.
              There are many different implementations of activitypub (the protocol mastodon uses) each with their own set of supported features that may or may not include correctly processing delete activities or may also allow the user to choose whether to accept delete activities.
              Additionally, your server may simply fail to send the delete activity to the other server due to normal network issues or the other server not being online at the time.

              Could someone set up an instance strictly for the purpose of maliciously harvesting as much data on others as possible?

              Yes, you could setup an instance with some activitypub implementation that doesn't process delete activities with a bot account that follows as many other accounts as possible.
              Having a follow bot (without the implementation that doesn't process delete activities part) is actually not uncommon (or at least it wasn't when I used mastodon a few years ago) as a way to jump-start a new/small instance so that the user(s) have some accounts showing up in the federated feed for account discovery and general interaction with the fediverse.

              However, this is somewhat looked down on as spammy behavior by many and I would frequently see users asking their admin to block the bot accounts and the admin quickly responding and doing so.

              I would actually say that if you're concerned with data privacy/harvesting of data that something like mastodon is much better than twitter or facebook.
              Mastodon allows you to set the privacy level (public, unlisted, followers-only, direct) of each toot, block your account from search engine indexing, and the admin settings have options to disable the public timeline from unauthenticated access.

              Additionally, the users and server admin have a few options for blocking bad actors.
              They can mute a user (you won't see their stuff), block a user (you won't see their stuff and they won't see your stuff), or block a server (same as block a user, but for a whole server).
              If the admin does a server block they can set the severity to silence (only your users who follow a user from the blocked server will see that content), suspend (everything from the blocked server will be deleted), or none (just rejects media).

              5 votes
            2. Eric_the_Cerise
              Link Parent
              This was an on-going concern when I first joined (4 years ago), still might be now, or the devs might have found an equitable solution ... I haven't investigated this in awhile.

              This was an on-going concern when I first joined (4 years ago), still might be now, or the devs might have found an equitable solution ... I haven't investigated this in awhile.

              4 votes
          2. [3]
            skybrian
            Link Parent
            I think the issue is that most of us don't know which servers are well-established or are well-supported. Where would we find this information?

            I think the issue is that most of us don't know which servers are well-established or are well-supported. Where would we find this information?

            4 votes
            1. [2]
              Eric_the_Cerise
              Link Parent
              Start at joinmastodon.org (here — https://joinmastodon.org/communities ), I believe those are all well-vetted communities, though any place with less than (at least) several hundred members might...

              Start at joinmastodon.org (here — https://joinmastodon.org/communities ), I believe those are all well-vetted communities, though any place with less than (at least) several hundred members might be a bit risky. I think you can find info on each server's homepage too, how long they've been online, mod policies, etc.

              Choose ... wisely.

              1 vote
              1. skybrian
                Link Parent
                Yeah, this directory would be more useful if it had a summary of server policies, how long they've been online, and maybe even a track record of uptime. Instead you have to click through and look...

                Yeah, this directory would be more useful if it had a summary of server policies, how long they've been online, and maybe even a track record of uptime. Instead you have to click through and look at the about page for each one.

                The names of the administrators would be useful too. (Then again, I suppose most of us ended up here without knowing Deimos at all.)

                5 votes
    4. [5]
      JRandomHacker
      Link Parent
      I'm looking now to see if there's a tech-focused Mastodon instance with open reg (or that I can snag an invite too), and I'm paring my Twitter down to smaller content creators who I want to keep...

      I'm looking now to see if there's a tech-focused Mastodon instance with open reg (or that I can snag an invite too), and I'm paring my Twitter down to smaller content creators who I want to keep up-to-date with (but I might see if there's some way I can run a service to collate those into RSS)

      4 votes
      1. Whom
        Link Parent
        If you (or anyone else looking to move) would like to join cybre.space, I joined recently and if you message me I'll get you an invite.

        If you (or anyone else looking to move) would like to join cybre.space, I joined recently and if you message me I'll get you an invite.

        4 votes
      2. inwardpath
        Link Parent
        I believe registration is open at mastodon.technology. Experiencing a large influx at the moment so performance may waver temporarily

        I believe registration is open at mastodon.technology. Experiencing a large influx at the moment so performance may waver temporarily

        3 votes
      3. [2]
        whispersilk
        Link Parent
        Fraidycat can do that for you, I believe.

        Fraidycat can do that for you, I believe.

        3 votes
        1. JRandomHacker
          Link Parent
          This looks like a really good option if I want to go browser-based. I'm already self-hosting RSS, so I want to take a look around to see if I can get something that'll sync into that.

          This looks like a really good option if I want to go browser-based. I'm already self-hosting RSS, so I want to take a look around to see if I can get something that'll sync into that.

          1 vote
    5. [6]
      knocklessmonster
      Link Parent
      Mastodon? I signed up for mastodon.social but left it because I have no need for social media like that, but I imagine with the reach mastodon can have it could help with the sorts of interactions...

      Mastodon?

      I signed up for mastodon.social but left it because I have no need for social media like that, but I imagine with the reach mastodon can have it could help with the sorts of interactions I see one typically wanting.

      Unless you require a firm connection to the mainstream.

      3 votes
      1. [5]
        EgoEimi
        Link Parent
        I tried Mastodon, but the content and community just aren't there. I think Mastodon made the classic mistake of emphasizing its technology — to the exclusion of UX, content, or community. The...

        I tried Mastodon, but the content and community just aren't there. I think Mastodon made the classic mistake of emphasizing its technology — to the exclusion of UX, content, or community. The project homepage gives the least inspiring sales pitch I've ever seen.

        You have 500 characters. You can adjust the thumbnails of your pictures with focal points. You can use custom emojis, hide things behind spoiler warnings and choose who sees a given post. Messed it up? You can delete & redraft for quick corrections.

        We're like 1.5 years away from people sexting each other augmented 3D scans of their private regions, and Mastodon is offering an early 2000s web experience.

        Twitter has the mainstream and all other 'streams.

        7 votes
        1. inwardpath
          Link Parent
          I think it depends on the instance and/or what you use Twitter for... what I realized is the community that does exist on Mastodon and Mastodon's purposeful "early 2000s" experience is exactly...

          I think it depends on the instance and/or what you use Twitter for... what I realized is the community that does exist on Mastodon and Mastodon's purposeful "early 2000s" experience is exactly what I like about it. We goof and joke around a bunch and we talk about technology (on the instance I use). We make the community what it is.

          Sure, it's slower, and less popular, and not the firehose of BS that Twitter is, but that's okay, IMHO. Does it mean mass adoption will never take hold? Sure, but I am quite okay with that. A good portion of the people on Twitter I wouldn't want on mastodon anyway (especially brands, billionaires, popular public figures, etc)

          6 votes
        2. [3]
          hungariantoast
          Link Parent
          Just to be clear, the 500-character limit is just the default value for an instance, it can be much higher, practically infinite like here on Tildes, on other Mastodon instances. Of course, that I...

          Just to be clear, the 500-character limit is just the default value for an instance, it can be much higher, practically infinite like here on Tildes, on other Mastodon instances.

          Of course, that I have to point this out is part of the problem... and I generally think arbitrarily small character limits are silly, on Mastodon, Imgur, Twitter, etc.

          Having said that, my Mastodon feed is by far my favorite place on the internet right now, because it's finely curated by me, filled with interesting and kind people whose primary passion are creating things.

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            knocklessmonster
            Link Parent
            How does the limit difference work for federation? Like if a 500-count instance serves a 1000-count instance's post?

            How does the limit difference work for federation? Like if a 500-count instance serves a 1000-count instance's post?

            2 votes
            1. hungariantoast
              Link Parent
              For reading posts on your feed and reblogging (or "boosting") them, the character limit is irrelevant. As for replying to people, there could be some trick around it that I am not aware of, but as...

              For reading posts on your feed and reblogging (or "boosting") them, the character limit is irrelevant.

              As for replying to people, there could be some trick around it that I am not aware of, but as far as I understand, each account is limited to the character limit of their home instance, regardless of what instance the account they are replying to is part of.

              So if I, with my mastodon.social account and 500-character limit, am replying to someone whose account is on an instance with a 2000-character limit, my reply is still limited to 500 characters.

              1 vote
  5. [2]
    googs
    Link
    I pray he follows through with open sourcing the algorithms, would be a hell of a silver lining.

    I pray he follows through with open sourcing the algorithms, would be a hell of a silver lining.

    8 votes
    1. Kiloku
      Link Parent
      Didn't the EU just make it so that social networks would have to do that regardless?

      Didn't the EU just make it so that social networks would have to do that regardless?

      3 votes
  6. [2]
    Merry
    Link
    With this news, I just went ahead deleted my Twitter account. Not to be dramatic, I just don't like the idea of me contributing any way to Musk's wealth. Ths guy just strikes me as hateful and I...

    With this news, I just went ahead deleted my Twitter account. Not to be dramatic, I just don't like the idea of me contributing any way to Musk's wealth. Ths guy just strikes me as hateful and I honestly can't think of any interaction I have seen from him where he seemed like a genuine, decent human being.

    It's not like it is a huge loss for me personally. I will miss the wholesome Twitter accounts that showed cute, heart warming stuff, but there are other places in the internet for that. Twitter is a time sink filled with mostly idle talk anyways. It is time for a change.

    7 votes
    1. cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Ditto. Although it's confusingly called "deactivate" rather than delete, apparently. I seriously dislike Musk, and can't stand the idea of being on a social media platform he now owns......

      Ditto. Although it's confusingly called "deactivate" rather than delete, apparently.

      I seriously dislike Musk, and can't stand the idea of being on a social media platform he now owns... especially if he follows through with his "free speech" BS. But I ain't even sticking around to find out if he does.

      4 votes
  7. Rez
    Link
    I don't expect Elon Musk to meaningfully govern the company. Basically if something reaches public/political awareness, Musk can take action on that, and leave the rest of whatever's...

    I don't expect Elon Musk to meaningfully govern the company. Basically if something reaches public/political awareness, Musk can take action on that, and leave the rest of whatever's "non-political" to staff. So I mean say, unbanning Trump or not having actioned sites like The Babylon Bee, but the rest of the moderating will probably stay the same (besides whatever promises he might follow through on). On top of this this also gives him leverage against Trump. Trump's the sort of guy to acknowledge that leverage as long as Musk doesn't criticize Trump. Musk may not be able to become President, but it seems like he's trying to wield power via this sort of business mogul Twitter model. He knows he can manipulate markets, and ultimately get away with a lot as long as nothing actually makes him go to jail. Now if he's ever arrested it would look politically charged, meaning Musk is now going to be able to get away with even more, akin to how Trump still walks free.

    Even if Twitter hollows out of its liberal and media type component, it may become even more popular with regular people who use it maybe not to post, but to listen to their favorite charismatic political leaders. We have to remember that part of the reason that Twitter became so inhabited by journalists was because it was where a lot of politicians and big shots used it to respond to people, media and regular people alike, and highlight and dictate issues - so journalists followed the powerful there. The character limit likely made it appealing to them because those types can be pretty busy - they aren't going to be sitting down at a PC to tweet, so the hardcoded limit means it was okay for them to never have to write essays and to be able to be casual and "real" in their language, which also makes the habit easy for them to keep up on, as the perception of authenticity is key to being an influential Twitter account. Musk probably doesn't care if Twitter loses a lot of people who post, as long as it still remains a place where charismatic people can cultivate followers at scale, and he's the man who owns it. A "free speech" policy is essential to making the website appealing to would-be charismatic political and business leaders.

    6 votes
  8. [21]
    tomf
    Link
    I think this might be good for Twitter. Combine this with some other stuff re: getting rid of bots and an open-source algo (maybe even a competition for a recommendation algo a la old school...

    I think this might be good for Twitter.

    At the TED2022 conference in April 2022, Musk said he wants Twitter to have an “edit” button and believes the problems critics raise can be resolved. “I think you only have the edit capability for a short period of time, and zero out all retweets and favorites” after an edit.

    Combine this with some other stuff re: getting rid of bots and an open-source algo (maybe even a competition for a recommendation algo a la old school Netflix), I think it'll all be for good.

    Not everybody likes Musk, but I can't see him spending a lot of energy on Twitter outside of general direction.

    6 votes
    1. [5]
      elcuello
      Link Parent
      If this was so easy you would think they would have done it already no?

      getting rid of bots

      If this was so easy you would think they would have done it already no?

      8 votes
      1. [2]
        onyxleopard
        Link Parent
        The argument I've heard against this is that Twitter had an interest in inflating their active user count. The argument is as follows: If actually cracking down on bots would make the active user...

        The argument I've heard against this is that Twitter had an interest in inflating their active user count. The argument is as follows:

        If actually cracking down on bots would make the active user count drop significantly, then cracking down on bots would be bad business for Twitter.

        I don't know if it's sound, but it is a valid argument.

        5 votes
        1. elcuello
          Link Parent
          That actually makes sense. Sadly.

          That actually makes sense. Sadly.

      2. tomf
        Link Parent
        like onyxleopard said, its about inflating numbers to show consistent growth, which keeps the shareholders happy. With twitter going private, they can ditch this false metric and focus on genuine...

        like onyxleopard said, its about inflating numbers to show consistent growth, which keeps the shareholders happy.

        With twitter going private, they can ditch this false metric and focus on genuine users, which is actually better for attracting advertisers.

        I wouldn't be surprised if the new blood comes out with better monetization strategies that aren't completely ad-based (e.g. charging media companies but also giving a stronger, native tool set via something like hootsuite)

        5 votes
      3. vektor
        Link Parent
        Wouldn't be hard to identify at least a bunch of bots. Certainly that one that keeps posting Elon's jet's whereabouts. Worthit!

        Wouldn't be hard to identify at least a bunch of bots. Certainly that one that keeps posting Elon's jet's whereabouts. Worthit!

        1 vote
    2. [15]
      arghdos
      Link Parent
      I am not at all convinced this is as easily done, nor that it will be of immediate benefit. E.g., from a TechDirt article a week or two back:

      an open-source algo

      I am not at all convinced this is as easily done, nor that it will be of immediate benefit. E.g., from a TechDirt article a week or two back:

      There’s then a slightly more interesting discussion of open sourcing the algorithm, which is its own can of worms that I’m not sure Musk understands. I’m all for more transparency, and the ability for competing algorithms to be available for moderation, but open sourcing it is different and not as straightforward as Musk seems to imply. First of all, it’s often not the algorithm that is the issue. Second, algorithms that are built up in a proprietary stack are not so easy to just randomly “open source” without revealing all sorts of other stuff. Third, the biggest beneficiaries of open sourcing the ranking algorithm will be spammers (which is doubly amusing because in just a few moments Musk is going to whine about spammers). Open sourcing the algorithm will be most interesting to those looking to abuse and game the system to promote their own stuff.

      We know this. We’ve seen it. There’s a reason why Google’s search algorithm has become more and more opaque over the years. Not because it’s trying to suppress people, but because the people who were most interested in understanding how it all worked were search engine spammers. Open sourcing the Twitter algorithm would do the same thing.

      7 votes
      1. [14]
        mtset
        Link Parent
        Maybe Twitter should just show posts in chronological order. Wild thought, I know.

        Maybe Twitter should just show posts in chronological order. Wild thought, I know.

        13 votes
        1. [11]
          vord
          Link Parent
          I can't believe what lengths the world goes to to avoid showing things in the order they happened. I want my news feed chronological with a low-pass filter to weed out garbage. I imagine most...

          I can't believe what lengths the world goes to to avoid showing things in the order they happened.

          I want my news feed chronological with a low-pass filter to weed out garbage. I imagine most people are the same, but I'll bet its harder to inject random ads and artificially inflate engagement in doing so.

          Nextdoor is particularily atrocious in this regard. It's a shame, because they've really cornered a nice niche (address-verified local social site), but it's just utterly horrible to use.

          8 votes
          1. [6]
            mat
            Link Parent
            You might imagine that but... I may have mentioned I have a friend who works at another large social network, and they have extensively tested this and turns out a majority of people prefer...

            I want my news feed chronological [...] I imagine most people are the same

            You might imagine that but... I may have mentioned I have a friend who works at another large social network, and they have extensively tested this and turns out a majority of people prefer curated news feeds which surface interesting/currently-active content over straight chronological ones. That's why it's a common thing, because most people like it. It's easy enough to put ads in either sort of feed and engagement is engagement unless you're actively faking the numbers in your tracking. Turns out people just like having "trending" things presented to them.

            Personally I also prefer a chronological feed, but there we are. People eh? People also like Ed Sheeran, watching football and drinking lager, I don't pretend to understand that either.

            12 votes
            1. [5]
              Rez
              Link Parent
              I think this is just a fallacy of metrics. Yes, it gets more people to use it and so it makes more money, but is that good for society, or is it just taking advantage of those susceptible to...
              • Exemplary

              I think this is just a fallacy of metrics. Yes, it gets more people to use it and so it makes more money, but is that good for society, or is it just taking advantage of those susceptible to social media addiction and controversy, hijacking our fallible psychology for profit? Ideally no one should be scrolling Instagram for an hour. For example, if you ask most people if they want to be fat, they’ll say no. They’ll also then overeat, but it doesn’t mean people actually want to overeat. I know it’s your friend but I really don’t give a pass on this argument. It’s like a drug pusher saying “well my users like it”.

              8 votes
              1. [4]
                mat
                Link Parent
                I see what you're saying but I'm also not that convinced that the bad part about social networks is a non-chronological news feed. Another way to look at this is do you really think Twitter/FBetc...

                I see what you're saying but I'm also not that convinced that the bad part about social networks is a non-chronological news feed. Another way to look at this is do you really think Twitter/FBetc would be significantly less problematic if they went back to 'most recent' as default?

                The ordering of content doesn't change the data gathering, the advert targetting, the dopamine hits offered by notifications, the insertion of known controversial posts for rage-engagement (which is not the same as sorting my friend's posts by activity, which is essentially how the non-chronological timeline works), etc. etc.

                Your drug dealer might be offering their products in a slightly more easy to use package but ultimately it's not the baggy that makes crack addictive.

                3 votes
                1. [3]
                  Rez
                  Link Parent
                  Well, there isn't just "one" bad part of social media, like "fix this one thing and we've fixed social media!". It's going to be a lot of things, like how it would be with gun control where people...

                  Well, there isn't just "one" bad part of social media, like "fix this one thing and we've fixed social media!". It's going to be a lot of things, like how it would be with gun control where people say "Well, this law you're proposing wouldn't have stopped this latest shooting, so why do it?", while ignoring the bigger context of how our mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomena and that they just keep happening while we keep doing nothing. The larger context here is that we know that that social media is toxic for our society, and we've known this for years now, and we're still doing pretty much nothing.

                  Now most of us don't have any power to influence the design of social media, but the people with the means and influence aren't trying. I don't have a magic solution. I just want people to try and it doesn't seem like they are trying. If you happen to know, does your friend think the corrosive toxicity of social media is inevitable? Is large-scale social media salvageable? If so, why doesn't it seem like we're making any meaningful progress on that front that we can see reflected in the real world? We've had this awareness of the toxicity of social media for years now and I think rather self-evidently the companies involved are not meaningfully committed to solving that toxicity at a fundamental level, since that threatens their business model which relies on engagement. They will tinker with the algorithm or take high profile moderation actions here and there for good PR points but at the end of the day we know the problem will continue.

                  Most people say they want chronological feeds even if their actions speak differently, the same way it goes for pretty much any vice and unhealthy activity. We know it's bad. Just because it's good for a company's metrics doesn't make it not bad. A non-chronological feed encourages people to be lazy with who and what they follow. If you follow some right-wing troll and only the most engaging, entertaining posts are shown to you from them at the top of your feed, instead of the less engaged posts and stinkers that makes you think "Wait this dude is an insane idiot", it means you have less incentive to actually unsubscribe from that person if the algorithm is curating their content to best keep you engaged, which lets the troll worm their way into a lot more peoples' feeds and minds. And because unsubscribing is bad for the business model, they don't want you to unsubscribe.

                  5 votes
                  1. mat
                    Link Parent
                    Yeesh, getting quite off topic here but OK. fwiw my friend works at Facebook, so I can only comment on things I've discussed with them relating to FB. I know a couple of Googlers too, but nobody...

                    Yeesh, getting quite off topic here but OK. fwiw my friend works at Facebook, so I can only comment on things I've discussed with them relating to FB. I know a couple of Googlers too, but nobody at Twitter.

                    does your friend think the corrosive toxicity of social media is inevitable?

                    Yes and no. Yes, but not in the sense I think you mean. You probably have to define "corrosive toxicity" rather better but generally the feeling inside FB is that social media reflects society rather than defines it. A proportion of people are toxic, therefore a proportion of social media will be too. Worth noting this is not played as a get out of jail free card to avoid doing anything.

                    I don't think social media is inherently bad, personally. It's done a huge amount of good along with the bad. For every teenage girl who has suffered from body-image issues due to Instagram there's hundreds of people who are having a lovely time keeping up with friends and seeing photos from people they like. Again, that's not to say we shouldn't be trying to help the teenage girl. But "social media" is a vast and multi-headed thing, many aspects of which are positive. I mean, we're here, aren't we? What is tildes if not social media?

                    why doesn't it seem like we're making any meaningful progress on that front that we can see reflected in the real world?

                    Because it's very hard to quantify, but also in no small part because you don't see lots of the progress being made. FB remove huge amounts of content from porn to nazis and gore and lots more. Hate groups get quietly hidden, etc. etc. You don't see most of the backend adjustments that change what people are shown. I'm not saying they're perfect, but things are changing. It's almost impossible to measure as an effect on overall society though, because there's far too many variables for that.

                    We've had this awareness of the toxicity of social media for years now and I think rather self-evidently the companies involved are not meaningfully committed to solving that toxicity at a fundamental level, since that threatens their business model which relies on engagement.

                    I don't think that's self-evident at all. I've seen internal FB docs which show they've been doing huge amounts of research into this. Millions of dollars being spent on high quality science. Whether they're doing what you or I would consider enough based on that research is a different question, but the accusation they're not taking action is completely untrue.

                    The business model is related to engagement, that is true. It actually relies on advertising, but more engaged users see more ads so the two are connected. But high quality, healthy engagement is worth much more than toxic stuff. Nobody wants to advertise on hate groups or negative body image ones or similar. Happy users are more valuable than angry or worse, addicted, ones.

                    Most people say they want chronological feeds even if their actions speak differently, the same way it goes for pretty much any vice and unhealthy activity. We know it's bad.

                    You say "most people" based on what? Most people you've talked to about it? I'm not at all convinced that activity-sorted timelines are inherently bad, and I'm pretty sure we don't "know" that either. FB have done testing on millions of people (both live on the site and in UI labs) and more people prefer non-chronological feeds than don't. It's not just about what's best for the metrics, although they do factor.

                    A non-chronological feed encourages people to be lazy with who and what they follow.

                    Have you met people? People are lazy. People are also busy, tech-illiterate, distracted and many other things which might make them look lazy on the surface.

                    If you follow some right-wing troll and only the most engaging, entertaining posts are shown to you from them at the top of your feed, instead of the less engaged posts and stinkers that makes you think "Wait this dude is an insane idiot"

                    I think if you're following a right-wing troll it's sort of up to you to realise that and take action. FB post content warnings on obvious misinformation (as best they can, it is a work in progress). Banning people based on their politics isn't something I have a great deal of problem with, personally - but FB isn't me. They're much more freeze peachy. Lots of people here are too, for whatever that's worth.

                    And because unsubscribing is bad for the business model, they don't want you to unsubscribe.

                    Bad engagement is also bad for business, as I said earlier. It's a more complex balance, it's nowhere near as simple as "clicks = good"

                    fwiw, views in this post not always my own. Lots of this is what you'd get from my friend at FB. Who is, for the record, one of my oldest and best friends and whose ethics are pretty damn solid. If FB actually was the company you appear to think it is, there is no way my friend would be working there. They have got plenty of choices for work, but the fact they continuing to choose FB tells me that there's more good to it that we can see from the outside. I appreciate how anecdotal that is, but I do think it's relevant.

                    4 votes
                  2. elcuello
                    Link Parent
                    I like the way you're thinking and it makes me wanna do something about it.

                    I like the way you're thinking and it makes me wanna do something about it.

                    1 vote
          2. [4]
            DrStone
            Link Parent
            How many accounts do you follow and how frequently do they tweet? I'm sure there's a threshold where the utility of pure chronological ordering breaks down. A lot of people on twitter follow every...

            How many accounts do you follow and how frequently do they tweet? I'm sure there's a threshold where the utility of pure chronological ordering breaks down. A lot of people on twitter follow every celebrity, band, organization, friend, and person they've heard of somewhere one time at a party back in school. The feed becomes an overwhelming firehose. They don't really care about seeing every tweet from all of those accounts, but they want to follow them just in case or for the social networking. "If only there was some way to see only the best tweets," they think. Enter the feed algorithm.

            5 votes
            1. [2]
              vord
              Link Parent
              To address both you and @mat: I'm using Nextdoor as my example, because it's the main one I use at all. There will be new posts daily in my area. You can never find them because some algorithm...

              To address both you and @mat:

              I'm using Nextdoor as my example, because it's the main one I use at all.

              There will be new posts daily in my area. You can never find them because some algorithm decided to promote some weeks-old post and a bunch of random ads. I could scroll for 3 minutes and not be able to find a post that I had a notification sent for.

              Back when I used Facebook, it was pretty easy to keep clean. Unfollow anyone spouting garbage. I wager Twitter is the same.

              I'm not even saying some sort of 'best-of' algorithm isn't useful.

              But a big problem can arises with misinformation. A lot easier to spread it when the factcheck can get buried under the popularity of the lie.

              3 votes
              1. kfwyre
                Link Parent
                I’ll second your assessment of Nextdoor. It’s the most aggressively disorienting algorithm I’ve ever seen for a feed, and they’re not shy about using that disorientation to serve you copious...

                I’ll second your assessment of Nextdoor. It’s the most aggressively disorienting algorithm I’ve ever seen for a feed, and they’re not shy about using that disorientation to serve you copious obnoxious ads. I deleted my account and never looked back. The idea of a local-focused social media platform is actually super useful, but Nextdoor’s implementation of that is outright hostile.

                4 votes
            2. elcuello
              Link Parent
              Yeah...no. If only there was a way I could control what I wanna see and not some money hungry people who pretends to know what I want because they have manipulated me into thinking this is what I...

              Yeah...no. If only there was a way I could control what I wanna see and not some money hungry people who pretends to know what I want because they have manipulated me into thinking this is what I need and want.

              2 votes
        2. skybrian
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Here is what I do: use the realtwitter.com redirect (it goes to the appropriate search), then click Latest. I don't know who runs the redirect, but you can bookmark the search after that.

          Here is what I do: use the realtwitter.com redirect (it goes to the appropriate search), then click Latest.

          I don't know who runs the redirect, but you can bookmark the search after that.

          1 vote
        3. streblo
          Link Parent
          I'm fairly certain if you use Twitter Lists as a default window into Twitter, everything is chronological, at least for now. Kind of a nice workaround to get a better experience.

          I'm fairly certain if you use Twitter Lists as a default window into Twitter, everything is chronological, at least for now. Kind of a nice workaround to get a better experience.

          1 vote
  9. skybrian
    Link
    I can imagine ways Twitter could get much better and ways it could get much worse. We'll see. I expect Musk will figure out how to get Twitter's most dedicated users to somehow need paid accounts,...

    I can imagine ways Twitter could get much better and ways it could get much worse. We'll see.

    I expect Musk will figure out how to get Twitter's most dedicated users to somehow need paid accounts, to pay off all that debt.

    (In theory this could be used to discourage some of the worse social behaviors, while still making it free to interact with your friends.)

    5 votes
  10. ras
    Link
    I’ve been on Twitter since before Obama was president. It’s gone through many different swings in that time and hopefully this is just another one. I’m not a Musk fan, but I’ll reserve judgement...

    I’ve been on Twitter since before Obama was president. It’s gone through many different swings in that time and hopefully this is just another one. I’m not a Musk fan, but I’ll reserve judgement until after I see what moves he makes.

    5 votes
  11. [2]
    moocow1452
    Link
    So, what happens if Elon does a couple things, and then gets bored moderating/answering press questions about Twitter a month later? Does he think he can flip it or is this a long term mission for...

    So, what happens if Elon does a couple things, and then gets bored moderating/answering press questions about Twitter a month later? Does he think he can flip it or is this a long term mission for him?

    2 votes
    1. teaearlgraycold
      Link Parent
      When he got bored of answering press questions at Tesla he shut down the PR department. Moderation issues will be “solved” by ending moderation practices in the name of free speech.

      When he got bored of answering press questions at Tesla he shut down the PR department. Moderation issues will be “solved” by ending moderation practices in the name of free speech.

      10 votes
  12. FishFingus
    Link
    Are we in for another kink subculture purge and/or mass exodus? The answer is maybe. Better start filling the ol' Google Drive now.

    Are we in for another kink subculture purge and/or mass exodus? The answer is maybe. Better start filling the ol' Google Drive now.

    1 vote