Ah in this town square metaphor, don't forget the private company's CEO has a megaphone and talks over people, and outright kicks them out of the square if you hurt his feelings.

How fucked up would it be if your actual town square was owned by a private company?

You have just invented malls. Hugely damaging to society, but they come with convenient parking and air con.

I quite like the tag line X, the abandoned shopping mall of the internet.

I think it describes it well.

Totally on your page, but what you're describing sounds kinda like times square.

And to top it all off, it's run by this guy in particular.

Considering the teams tasked with containing political opinion manipulation campaigns were the first to go, I think that is exactly what the acquisition boils down to. A license to manipulate and meddle in public discussion for anyone rich or powerful enough (and of a political disposition agreeable to Musk's increasingly GOP/Russia-indoctrinated mind).

It's a "public town square" where the major approvingly smiles as groups of paid shills and remote-controlled opinion pushers insert themselves into discussions and roughen up people they notice going against the opinions they push.

Yeah. Same. I moved to Mastodon, and then ended up getting my invite to Bluesky (two weeks before it opened to everyone...thanks Jack Dorsey...real helpful...). But no one is there. Mastodon has mostly tech and open source. Bluesky is...well...nothing that I can tell.

Unquestionably the winner of Twitter's fall was TikTok, when suddenly everyone including politicians started making accounts/posts. Which is likely a large part of the push to get it banned in the US. Because it's taking away users/advertisers from good ol' 'murican tech businesses owned by south african diamond mine nepo babies.

The basic problem was that only positive reactions were allowed - like, retweet, follow

Idk if I would call retweeting positive reaction, especially when that retweet is 'look at this fucking moron'.

I would say that the "positive vibes only" trait is part of it, but the far bigger problem was the character limit. Even when it was double from 140 to 280, that still doesn't not leave room for nuanced opinions. And then, the least nuanced opinions also become the most easily spreadable. Both traits really reward our worst instincts.

Downvoting and disliking can have their own issues too.

On Lemmy, downvoting isn't really that bad, especially compared to Reddit, and that's likely because of the federated model where instance admins can't trust the authenticity of votes. On Lemmy, voting effects the score on the post and that's it, as opposed to Reddit where taking on too many downvotes will shadow ban or lock your account, even if you still have thousands of karma in the subreddit where it happened. Those restrictions also apply site wide. Lemmy users also don't have a global karma count, which removes most temptation to delete posts that go negative and self censor. Of course there are probably many people out there who would delete a post with a 10:1 negative score ratio. Then again if it's that bad then it might not be a bad thing to delete it.

Both models have their place and pros and cons. I understand the nefarious intent behind this change on Youtube, but I feel like hiding negative feedback so that only the poster can see it has potential. It could deter bandwagon downvote brigading. Dislikes are really only relevant to the algorithm and the user who posted the content.

I noticed that as well. Every once in a while there will be a link to something interesting om Twitter, but you only get basically a screenshot. If you try and do any other viewing you immediately get pushed for sign in.

That you lose only 18% of your users?

Social media fatigue is slowly getting traction. I don't have an article or study at hand to back it up, but I read about it the other day. Especially in younger generations it's a trend already.

Also, but that's only my personal theorie, i think it's a trend only among the less-hateful people. Hateful people nonstop spewing their vile messages everywhere is making "normal" people leave, which then turns off even more "normal" people.

The enraged slowly turning (unmoderated) social media into one big echo chamber.

It's something you see endless repeated. When there is no rules, you get the loudest, baddest, pieces of work, rise to the top and then set rules that favour them. Look over the world and history, where law and order has broke down, war/drug lords take over.

I lived in Holland for a bit, my Dutch colleagues told a story of the bus system. Holland tried a honor payment system, trusting people to pay what they needed to for their trip. It failed hard and was replaced with fair collectors my colleagues called "the bus Nazis".

The same thing happens with free speech absolutism. You hit "Paradox of tolerance".

Anarchy just doesn't work. You need rules for everyone to play nice by.

Myspace existed for a really long time after it ceased to be relevant. It actually only ceased to be relevant after they lost all the music that had been uploaded. That's when independent musicians finally abandoned it, and it basically disappeared.

Reporting on "X" is what's keeping it alive, IMHO. Stop reporting on it and it will stop being used. Alternatively, if there's some major incident, that would probably be enough to finish it. It may eventually go bankrupt between now and then, but it's actually pretty useful for people wanting to spread nazi propaganda so the far right will probably keep pumping money in until it collapses.

It would get attention, but can that attention be translated into ad revenue? So it doesn't really help Musk out, and would be a bad move. So it seems like a stupid thing to do. So he'll probably do it.