I can't understand journalists that remain on X. The system is explicitly designed to promote voices that are opposed to the values they (supposedly) represent.
And if you were to remove the first link in that chain, if there were no journalists on there at all, I genuinely do think that entire ecosystem would completely break down. Or at the very least disappear inside its own filter bubble. Something to consider.
I can't understand journalists that remain on X. The system is explicitly designed to promote voices that are opposed to the values they (supposedly) represent.
The illusion that everybody is still there perhaps? I'll suggest to my privacy leaning friends that they nuke Instagram and Facebook and they'll feel far better, but somehow, they can't bring...
The illusion that everybody is still there perhaps?
I'll suggest to my privacy leaning friends that they nuke Instagram and Facebook and they'll feel far better, but somehow, they can't bring themselves to disconnect.
You'd think that people so disgusted with their "algorithm" would take action, but as we all know, routine is a powerful drug.
I love(hate) how Twitter comments have become a stand-in for what TV news journalists used to call Streeters. No, a random account is not a decent sample of what "people" are saying. Anonymity is...
I love(hate) how Twitter comments have become a stand-in for what TV news journalists used to call Streeters.
No, a random account is not a decent sample of what "people" are saying.
Anonymity is exactly that - stop with this foolish practice of calling text a person.
Where do you see this happen, seriously? I am pretty selective about which news sources I consume but the only time I see X being cited is when the story involves groups that congregate on the...
Where do you see this happen, seriously?
I am pretty selective about which news sources I consume but the only time I see X being cited is when the story involves groups that congregate on the platform.
If you are seeing stories citing random nobodies you should seriously not only be rejecting the story, but the entire outlet. Clearly there is something wrong with their editorial standards.
Some are but many have left the platform. It used to be a town square of a busy, lively, diverse city and now it's a place you go because you remember it being great. Again, so many people have...
Some are but many have left the platform. It used to be a town square of a busy, lively, diverse city and now it's a place you go because you remember it being great. Again, so many people have left, but there's really no alternative.
I can't understand journalists that remain on X. The system is explicitly designed to promote voices that are opposed to the values they (supposedly) represent.
The illusion that everybody is still there perhaps?
I'll suggest to my privacy leaning friends that they nuke Instagram and Facebook and they'll feel far better, but somehow, they can't bring themselves to disconnect.
You'd think that people so disgusted with their "algorithm" would take action, but as we all know, routine is a powerful drug.
Journalists still source it, which is another problem. And they do that to create outrage headlines, “here’s why people are upset about xyz”
I love(hate) how Twitter comments have become a stand-in for what TV news journalists used to call Streeters.
No, a random account is not a decent sample of what "people" are saying.
Anonymity is exactly that - stop with this foolish practice of calling text a person.
"we now go live to the official spokesperson for the liberal agenda... the dumbest tweet our intern could find"
Where do you see this happen, seriously?
I am pretty selective about which news sources I consume but the only time I see X being cited is when the story involves groups that congregate on the platform.
If you are seeing stories citing random nobodies you should seriously not only be rejecting the story, but the entire outlet. Clearly there is something wrong with their editorial standards.
I point them out because I don’t take them seriously, but people do. Do a quick google search on the news of “people are mad about”
https://cafemom.com/entertainment/leon-brown-sister-wives-boundaries
https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniesoteriou/bella-ramsey-admits-not-vegan-backlash-explained
https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3565586/people-are-mad-about-michael-b-jordan-eating-at-in-n-out-after-the-oscars-hes
I don’t read those publications, I just did a quick google search right now. Journalists have done this since Twitter was at its peak
Unfortunately many of them are delusional on this regard…
What makes you think it's an illusion?
Some are but many have left the platform. It used to be a town square of a busy, lively, diverse city and now it's a place you go because you remember it being great. Again, so many people have left, but there's really no alternative.