Who TF wants to use Twitter? Its the worst echo chamber out there.
It's certainly more diverse than Bluesky, if this is an echo chamber-measuring contest.
There are news that are circulating much faster on Twitter than anywhere else (for example about war in Ukraine). There are people and companies that post only on Twitter and nowhere else (especially in tech).
The Twitter experience is a highly algorithmic feed where tweets from the people you follow are not guaranteed to be in chronological order, or even shown to you at all. The default experience also mixes it other tweets "you might be interested in", that is, things they want you to see.
There's also the fact people could freely see tweets and follow discussion threads, that's now locked behind an account requirement.
Not on Nitter! Which is the point, for me at least.
Bottom line is you DONT need twitter if your only want is "i want rumours called news the minute something happens"
This site is a good alternative for tech news.
A lot of non-Western accounts were recently demonetized so maybe they will move elsewhere. Although the best ones don’t seem to be doing it for money, they usually have some personal grudge.
Especially annoying when Twitter is a source for something.
> There are news that are circulating much faster on Twitter than anywhere else (for example about war in Ukraine).
I am certain that Twitter is not the only place where you can find these updates, if you really care for up-to-the-minute news. But I don’t.
> There are people and companies that post only on Twitter and nowhere else (especially in tech).
These people and companies are (knowingly or unknowingly) supporting a Nazi billionaire and they are not worth paying any attention to until they change their behavior.
You can see only Tweets from people you follow and nothing else. As I said, you are controlling the buttons you push.
So no, Reddit is not worse than Xitter both on social and tech merit.
You may has well have replied that, in fact, its color scheme is more red than Twitter.
Option B: a power tripping drug-addled Nazi billionaire owns the entire site and can change the site behavior for every user on a whim, with no recourse.
This doesn’t seem like a hard choice to make.
Reddit can be good if you stay in your niche and off the default subs. Twitter is good if you similarly curate your experience and don’t let it push you into garbage.
I don’t use either much anymore.
I want to follow the guy who tracked Elon's jet and documented its fuel usage and CO2 emissions. Oops, can't make that part of my "curated experience" on Twitter. So much for free speech absolutism.
The point is that when you're subject to the whims of an irrational asshole, you can't have any assurance that your curated experience will stay consistent. For this reason alone, Twitter is worse than Reddit.
But I don't use either site anymore at all.
Are you anti-drugs? Do you think drug users are bad people or using drugs is condemnable? I'm asking because anti-fascists are typically pro-drugs. So I'm confused.
You don't think drug users are bad people, so surely that's just a neutral question...
Or maybe there are times where drug use can still be a problem, whether it makes people bad people or not.
Don't drink and drive. Don't do drugs and buy media companies.
But you are right, so you agree that frequent drug users should not be offered jobs with responsibilities because for example they might drug and drive.
I never said any such thing. Please don’t misrepresent my words.
No.
> Do you think drug users are bad people
No, no one is a bad person only because they use drugs.
> or using drugs is condemnable
As a general statement, no.
But my answer is yes, your actions are condemnable, if you decide to let drugs affect your mental state in any way as you’re making important decisions that affect other people.
For example, if you’re making safety decisions for a vehicle that’s being manufactured. Or if you are making pretty much any decision at all for a company that you run which makes medical devices that are implanted in people's bodies. Or if you’re deciding to gut a government program that is responsible for feeding or medicating thousands of people (meaning that your decisions can directly lead to thousands of deaths).
Do you think an emotionally inept billionare Nazi with a drug problem should have been in charge of deciding whether poor people from other countries (who are often non-white) continue to receive life-saving aid? Do you think if that person makes the decision to cut that aid, killing those people, it's appropriate for him to brag about it publicly using the term "wood chipper" as a metaphor?
Why did Elon ban PaulG and many for posting a link to Mastodon?
Why did so many get suspended for sharing the location of Elon's private jet?
Why did Elon ban a journalist after reporting a dossier on JD Vance? https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-dossier-leak-hack-iran-ken...
Why did Elon ban a journalist who interviewed the guy who hacked a conservative activist? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/twitter-suspende...
Why did Elon ban a journalist for reporting on Tesla? https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/15/23512158/elon-musk-twi...
> hungry for the raw, real truth
Haha sure. Why not go to the original where Tweets are actually literally called Truths?
2) absolute freedom to post whatever you like and have it shoved in people's faces by the algorithm is harmful
3) usually when people are "hungry for the raw, real truth" they're actually chasing a bunch of conspiracy theories
If you aren’t a polyglot, the only ways to follow news about global conflicts and non-Western politics are Twitter or Telegram. Pick your poison.
And they all require accounts that I don't want to have.
Also the Asian community (Korea, Japan etc) is incredibly strong on Twitter. They don't really care about the whole politics around the platform.
If you follow specific profiles/channels/pages and just read the feeds from them as if they were news, you are removing the toxic part (mostly infinite scrolling) and getting a resourceful feature.
If for some reason someone you need to follow is on X (twitter) only, you have to choose between losing a source or compromise with the platform.
I personally belong to the former group (and possibly you do, too), leaving behind sources, but not everyone likes it that way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I thought so too. But after leaving 3 years ago it turns out: Not a single source is that important.
Also, as the importance increases, the likelihood of seeing the same information outside that hellhole increases linearly.
Twitter is a private company, deciding for their own services. Leaving it behind is more useful than asking them to rollback.
Allowing the nazi voices definitely did. And while that dude isn't the judge of what is toxic, a majority of people are.
I don't know what you personally want to call it when someone posts condolences about a tragedy or massacre killing many people in their home country, and the nazis pop up to reply "you're next, [racial slur omitted]". Pretty sure most people would call that toxic, so it's toxic, even if a small minority of people disagree.
Seems like a tangent either way: letting violent right-wing nazis do violent right-wing nazi things on twitter has definitely made it worse and more toxic than not letting violent right-wing nazis do violent right-wing nazi things on twitter.
Indeed, death threats are worse than whatever censorship one claims happened on twitter pre-elmu, because free speech is predicated upon appropriately responding to death threats. Otherwise, speech can be censored with violence, and on twitter, it is now (along with elmu and friends censoring accounts they don't like by banning them).
"They don't call you a Nazi because you are one, they call you a Nazi to silence you."
You are free to continue condoning nazi death threats towards minorities on twitter since elmu started allowing it, but it has nonetheless made twitter worse and more toxic. Whatever you personally think about whatever drama on whatever other social network is irrelevant to that.
What some other random social media site did or does is not relevant to whether the elmu-condoned nazi death threats on twitter have made it more or less toxic than it was before.
Do you personally believe that nazi death threats are toxic? You can be honest.
If you think a post is so bad to be illegal you have means to deal with that outside the platform. Just remember that on internet you will find everyone, from 12 years old kids, to older people coming from different cultures, or more simply, trolls...
You have your opinions, but that doesn't mean they are objectively correct. Also, if you are offended, doesn't mean you are right.
let's be friends, I can be your first one here :)
And then I avoid them.
Hacker News and basically everyone from YC have an official profile on Twitter: https://x.com/hackernews