https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_visited_websites
Also, it seems Ukraine war topics are down-ranked so people don't see as much about it anymore
Rather than that, I am frankly amazed that the site largely works after firing 80% of its workforce. It's staggering.
But in the push to become public the site becomes worse and worse.
First they created the "new" reddit, which is picture and ad driven. This might bring in stupid people, but kills usability and long term harms quality discussion.
Then they started to not so subtly push the new reddit: you need to go there to setup cookies, the site "accidently" turns it on like once per month, things dont work in old reddit (e.g. polls).
Now they killed i.reddit (aka .compact reddit) what kills the smooth phone experience. When I open reddit on phone now, like every page takes 5 seconds to load, then nags me to install their app, then is unreadable mess.
Since Im ranting: oh how much I miss the reddit toolbar (top comments on one part of the screen and website on other). I wish there was an addon that could emulate it - perhaps by opening two separate windows somehow and gluing them.
When I can no longer use old.reddit I will stop giving them the little usage time I still spend there.
This is definitely just a matter of time, they're slowly moving there by killing off things like `i.`. They'll lose a bunch of "us", but overall it's probably not going to affect their bottom line. Some specific high-quality discussion subreddits dying out means nothing if there are dozens of multi-million user subreddits with generic memes or TikTok-reposts.
they've been insufferable for a long time, and on mobile I've completely given up on them
Now I don't spend as much time on it because Twitter actively pushes its politics and hides Ukraine-Russia war content. I often check out stuff on Mastodon since it doesn't have a biased algorithm
And, again, Reddit hasn’t had an 80% workforce cut (though it sorely needs it).
Do you maybe want your country to abstain from the conflict, save money/resources and let the survival of the fittest take place? What side do you believe it will benefit?
For example, I support the west providing weapons to Ukraine - but I would not support a US return to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, or an intervention in Mexico to wipe out drug cartels, or an invasion of China because of the internment of Uyghurs - even though those are all awful.
Politicians will often go as far as explicitly announcing the criteria by which they'll decide which wars to involve their country in - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine
Twitter went from a business that moderated content based on policies, to a business that moderates content based on the day-to-day whims of an easily distracted Elon Musk. The idea that it’s somehow more open for balanced conversations now is directly contradicted by how it is actually operating.
Capricious, malicious, and selfish moderation is poisonous to a business that depends on free user-generated content.
Instead, in some Chomskian myopia there is a considerable number of people in Europe and USA spreading FUD and reducing their opinion to "war is bad (sad emoji face) Ukraine shouldn't do war".
I didn't expect there to be technical issues.
Did Twitter even care about your local politics before Musk? They banned Trump, while the ayatollah, CCP etc. retrained their accounts.
Facebook was also actively censoring discussion related to American politics, while hardly noticing that a literal genocide was being coordinated on their platform in southeast Asia.
Was this a decision or simply a lack of resources for that area.
It's fine to note that they are both bad and both mean culpability and liability, but pretending they are literally the same thing is the worst kind of rhetorical device.
When Sri Lanka pulled the plug on Facebook as violence was starting to erupt, Facebook did then reach out...to ask why their Sri Lankan traffic had dropped off.
This is documented in a variety of places, but for an excellent write-up of these tragedies I'd recommend The Chaos Machine by Max Fisher.
1. Facebook wanted or didn't care at all that a genocide was going to happen and happened
2. Facebook cared to a reasonable extent but due to an american centric setup isn't prepared to censor posts in certain areas of the world
Bad? Yes, evil? No big difference
This is an incredible characterisation of a site that was full of right-wingers before the sale.
Perhaps it's just a case of maximum engagement generation instead...
Twitter threads of Ngo using selective video editing to make it seems like up is down: https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/116496174509978828...
General summary: https://www.salon.com/2019/08/28/right-wing-journalist-andy-...
Ngo lying about leftist critics being violent, and Musk taking him at his word and banning them: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
Does it surprise me that his detractors would claim he is “neo-nazi-friendly”? Not in the slightest. The “anti-fascists” routinely claim the people they brutalize are fascist nazis - it’s a form of projection / deflection.
Oh well, if being neo-nazi-friendly is OK, will you still defend him hanging out with pedophiles?
Here's pics of Ngo hanging out with Amos Yew, a year after Yew's tweets (also in pic) that children should be able to have sex, and that child porn should be legal: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FidcvHsX0AI1ncI?format=jpg&name=...
Feel free to admit that Ngo is a colossal liar and a horrible person any time now.
From now on (Day G1?), we're going to be awash with AI written stuff. Literally drowned in it. The first AI drafted marketing emails have already started hitting my inbox, and that's just the start I guess.