316

I considered leaving Twitter as soon as Elon Musk acquired it in 2022, just not wanting to be part of a community that could be bought, least of all by a man like him – the obnoxious “long hours at a high intensity” bullying of his staff began immediately. But I’ve had some of the most interesting conversations of my life on there, both randomly, ambling about, and solicited, for stories: “Anyone got catastrophically lonely during Covid?”; “Anyone hooked up with their secondary school boy/girlfriend?” We used to call it the place where you told the truth to strangers (Facebook was where you lied to your friends), and that wide-openness was reciprocal and gorgeous.

“Twitter has broken the mould,” Mulhall says. “It’s ostensibly a mainstream platform which now has bespoke moderation policies. Elon Musk is himself inculcated with radical right politics. So it’s behaving much more like a bespoke platform, created by the far right. This marks it out significantly from any other platform. And it’s extremely toxic, an order of magnitude worse, not least because, while it still has terms of service, they’re not necessarily implementing them.”

Global civil society, though, finds it incredibly difficult to reject the free speech argument out of hand, because the alternative is so dark: that a number of billionaires – not just Musk but also Thiel with Rumble, Parler’s original backer, Rebekah Mercer (daughter of Robert Mercer, funder of Breitbart), and, indirectly, billionaire sovereign actors such as Putin – are successfully changing society, destroying the trust we have in each other and in institutions. It’s much more comfortable to think they’re doing that by accident, because they just love “free speech”, than that they’re doing that on purpose. “Part of understanding the neo-reactionary and ‘dark enlightenment’ movements, is that these individuals don’t have any interest in the continuation of the status quo,”

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 111 points 1 month ago

And is it ethical to keep using it?

How is this even a debate? No! The answer is fucking "no"!

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

Asking that question is the first step people need in order to finally come to that conclusion. We all just completed the process a loooooong time ago.

[-] Moah 9 points 1 month ago

I left when Musk started paying Andrew Tate. Never looked back

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I've lost to faith in several self proclaimed leftists over this that I have followed (not on Twitter) for years. They cannot let go of what they have "built for themselves" there and refuse to accept their own actions have consequences when they wear their blue checkmark with pride like storm troops wore their swastikas back in the 1930s. Everything is a class struggle except when it would impact them. Then it conveniently becomes a mere transaction between them and a provider and you shouldn't think too much about it because it benefits them. And if it benefits them, it benefits the cause, right? Right???

[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's not, but the people who care about ethics and would answer yes, already left.

So now it's just everyone else. Articles like this aren't really aimed at us.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 88 points 1 month ago

Should I not go to the Nazi Fair even though the food is really good and the vendors are all nice people?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

Yeah, except the food sucks and it's full of Nazis...

The article says they don't want to leave because of their high follower counts....

But most of them are bots, inactive, or Nazis following so they can troll comments easier.

They care about an empty number and won't do the slightest work to improve an alternative.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 82 points 1 month ago

is it ethical to stop using a racist platform owned by a racist?

gee i wonder

maybe its not ethical for media outlets to not continually call out twitter for its racist propaganda.

[-] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 57 points 1 month ago
[-] Womble@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

hmmm I wonder if that is considered in the thousands of words of this article...

It got more unpleasant after the blue-tick fiasco: identity verification became something you could buy, which destroyed the trust quotient. So I joined the rival platform Mastodon, but fast realised that I would never get 70,000 followers on there like I had on Twitter. It wasn’t that I wanted the attention per se, just that my gang wasn’t varied or noisy enough. There’s something eerie and a bit depressing about a social media feed that doesn’t refresh often enough, like walking into a shopping mall where half the shops have closed down and the rest are all selling the same thing.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 51 points 1 month ago

There’s something eerie and a bit depressing about a social media feed that doesn’t refresh often enough

Society's modern artificially induced ADHD on display here. Anybody remember when websites were all static and didn't dynamically change at all?

[-] nyan@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 month ago

CGI was a pretty early invention, so you would have had to be on the Web very early indeed to remember when it was entirely static. Main difference between the server-side era and now was that the usual way for pages to show changes back then was to autotrigger the browser's reload mechanism after a fixed time.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 1 month ago

you would have had to be on the Web very early indeed to remember when it was entirely static

Correct. My first web browser was Mosaic. I was using it on my Dad's PC in 1994 at 12 years old.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago

Imagine not having 70,000 followers. Fate worse then death.

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

The purpose of twitter like platforms is to have people to listen to and people to listen to you, so yes vastly lower user counts is a drawback.

[-] cupcakezealot 34 points 1 month ago

it's always been full of hatred; it just had a trust and safety team that attempted to do something about it before elon.

[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 29 points 1 month ago

And is it ethical to keep using it?

No. And I'll go further: if you still use it, at the very least you're an entitled arsehole ranking their own dopamine over the well-being of everyone else. And you deserve to be treated as such.

But I’ve had some of the most interesting conversations of my life on there, both randomly, ambling about, and solicited, for stories:

They're weighting the emotional investment in the platform, caused by their earlier interactions, with it, as if it mattered when deciding future usage. It does not; that's a fallacy = stupid shit called "sunken cost".

fast realised that I would never get 70,000 followers on there like I had on Twitter. It wasn’t that I wanted the attention per se, just that my gang wasn’t varied or noisy enough

Refer to what I said about the title.

Stopped reading here. This article is a waste of my time.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

If someone is still questioning if they should be on Twitter, then they don't know enough about what's going on to speak about why people shouldnt still be using it.

It's not exactly complicated.

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Have you considered that maybe other people have different priorities, needs and desires to you, and that for people coming around to your point of view you should encourage them rather than castigate them for taking too long?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

If all you want is a participation trophy and no one to tell you how to do better, sure.

I don't see the point in that, but I do see a point to honest feedback.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I don't give a fuck about the opinions of people with evil priorities. They're wrong and need to lose, end of!

Morality is not relative.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago

Morality is definitely relative, there's just some common overlaps

Sometimes the answer is just the same no matter what (coherent) moral framework you examine it through... Sometimes it's just that simple

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 month ago

Sometimes people's priorities, needs, and desires are bad.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 month ago
[-] tortina_original@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

"Journalists" still love Twitter because they don't need to do any real investigative work anymore, they just report on "he said, she said" idiocy. Instant drama and source of clicks.

So much of news these days seem to be "someone said something (on Twitter)".

Gossip generation...

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 points 1 month ago

If you had bothered to read the article, you would know this isn't actually the gotcha you think it is.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 month ago

I did read the article. It's a bunch of whinging and rationalization as she furiously tries to paper over the real reason she refuses to quit Twitter — her precious 70k followers. That's all that matters to these journalists.

[-] 4vgj0e@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

Twitter should just merge with Truth Social at this point. So that way people will know what kind of platform they are engaging with.

[-] gencha@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Oh boy, what a marvelous idea. This could save the tanking DJT stock and allow them to prolong the scam. It would allow Trump to close the Truth Social scam with a seemingly sensible move. Elon is supposed to be in his cabinet anyway. It's perfect.

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

I won’t even click on links to Twitter anymore. I had an account in the beginning but even back then the signal to noise ratio was stupid low. Now It’s all bots and nazis.

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 13 points 1 month ago

But we don’t need a government to step in and tell us to stop using X; we could do that on our own. Brazilians, Twitterless, have been migrating to Bluesky, which was set up in 2019 by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey. Bluesky’s Wang described on Monday “a wild ride even in the last four days. As of this morning, we’ve had nearer 2 million new users.” If we all did that (I’ve done that!), would it obliterate X’s power? Or would there just be a bifurcation, a Good Place and a Bad Place?

Bluesky serves a similar purpose to X but is designed completely differently, as Wang describes: “No single entity has control over the platform, all the code is open-sourced, anyone can copy and paste our entire code. We can’t own your data, you can take it wherever you want. We have to win your usership through our performance or else you will leave. That’s much more like how search engines work. If you enshittify the search engine by placing ads everywhere, people will go to a different search engine.”

The main hurdle has been that people migrate in packs and until recently weren’t migrating fast enough. If they do, and Saperia is right, Bluesky and Threads (which now has 175 million active monthly users), will ultimately supplant X. Will it be the same? It can’t be – the free-for-all of the open web, from which Twitter created its famous “town square” discursive experience (anyone could chat, and look, the Coastguard Agency and CNN were also right there) has been replaced by a social media idea Saperia calls the “dark forest” and Wang describes as “you find your people in small spaces, and work together to build an experience that you want – basic human building blocks of interaction”.

I understand the argument that all the "good" people leaving X will only amplify the voices of the "bad" people on the platform, but alternatives like Bluesky won't survive if no one uses them. So ultimately I would say that the more ethical choice is to leave X and support a better competitor rather than stay and prolong its legitimacy. It's not a perfect solution and will further segment society in the short-term but I don't see how remaining on X contributes to a better future.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

People want an easy "fight" to feel like they're doing something.

They don't understand that if all the "good people" left twitter, the right wingers would fight each other

Staying on Twitter just gives them all a common enemy and unites them, leaving fractures them.

So just fucking leave.

[-] Vaggumon@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Musk and no, anyone still using it is fine with its issues

[-] TheDeadHorse@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Before WW1 many people left the area because they didn't want anything to do with war. The area became more "hawkish" let's say. Before WW2 many people left the area because they didn't want anything to do with ANOTHER war. Also, some of them were literally being persecuted. The remaining people trended towards a certain persuasion.

When Elmo bought Xwitter people left. Guess who remained? When he invited the racists back, guess who remained? When he invited the banned people back, guess who remained?

Xwitter has always been shit, but when you cut the corn and peanuts out it's all shit.

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Stop upvoting this bullshit. Both of these headlines have patently obvious answers. This is click bait.

[-] Harvey656@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

While I agree with absolutely everything in the article, Twitter was already quite bad before Musk, at least for the end user.

The platform excels at letting people shout into an echo chamber, and is easily falling into opinion pits. The fall of Twitter was an inevitability frankly, Musk merely sped things up.

Honestly, I think the idea of echo chamber style social media is slowly on the way out, they have way too much bad PR for way too long to be sustainable anymore, or maybe that's me being positive.

Either way, social media will be changing, for better or worse within the next few years.

[-] ian@feddit.uk 8 points 1 month ago

Twitter was a cess pit before Musk took over. It had gone the way of most centralised networks. People won't leave or they get cut off and lose their followers. Networks know this, and stop caring. Twitter still exists because selfish people won't leave. Never join any centralised network. You are helping it go bad. Musk did a good thing in chasing millions off of Twitter. Some stay on there and grizzle about the mess, they themselves, made, and blame it all on Musk.

[-] Resol@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Even if it wasn't full of hatred, it's still a pretty big waste of time, even before the Muskrat was in charge.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Meh it had some used back then. I used it to keep track of local news and police. Things would often show up hours before other sources. Local schools pushed closing and such, making it more convenient.

[-] Resol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I guess I was wrong in some way.

[-] gencha@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

Should I really give up my empty metric of 70K followers and move my communication and journalistic research to another echo chamber and advertising platform run by another billionaire?

It really is a tough one.

[-] pH3ra@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Twitter got bought literally less than 2 years ago, we all fucking witnessed it.
Who is this article for? 1 year olds?

[-] db2@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Who cares about ethics in social media? The question is, if you want to become a hateful hyperbole.

[-] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 month ago

Did Musk take a thing we all loved and smash it? Pretty much.

Haha! I love seeing left wingers pretend that X didn't have these problems before Elon Musk took over lol

[-] Grangle1@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

It just wasn't a problem to them and it was a problem for people they didn't like (whom they call Nazis, various "-ists" and so on if they dare think differently from them). Now it's flipped and it's a problem for them but not the people they don't like. Every platform needs some form of moderation, but that moderation can run the risk of being too harsh on certain groups depending on the opinions of the moderators. Dorsey himself admitted this was happening at Twitter (being too harsh on legitimate conservative views (not just real Nazis) because the mods didn't like them) to Congress before it was sold, and he did little to nothing about it. Now the moderation seems to be at the whims of however Elon is feeling on any given day, and due to his own stances, liberals are now getting the brunt of it. It really would be nice to just have somewhere where only the very extremes of left and right, and any actual illegal content, would be moderated out and the mods could keep to that no matter what "side" they or ownership is on. But I know that's just a pipe dream.

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
316 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59076 readers
3070 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS