5 ms·

I don't notice any of the things you mentioned. As a user, I haven't felt much difference before and after Musk's takeover. If anything, I think Twitter is a li

I don't notice any of the things you mentioned. As a user, I haven't felt much difference before and after Musk's takeover. If anything, I think Twitter is a little bit better and more vibrant now, because the censorship is not like before. Yes, lot's of people tried Mastodon as an alternative, but I still see almost all my followees on Twitter.

tomrod 3y ago
Your comments reminds me of the metaphor of boiling a frog. Twitters users, the advertisers, have noticed. Thus the revenue decrease. Twitter's product, sets of eyeballs, are still around (despite being compositionally a different population, mostly).
DonHopkins 3y ago
[flagged]
- larksimian 3y ago
  You follow some weird accounts if that's what you see in your feed.
- the_doctah 3y ago
  [flagged]
wpietri 3y ago
Oh? What are some examples of the "censorship is not like before" that you think have improved things?
- the_doctah 3y ago
  People aren't getting banned for telling "journalists" to learn to code.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    People were getting banned for harassing individual laid-off journalists. A tweet expressing a view about good jobs for journalists changing industries was not ever a problem, so it wasn't a free-speech concern. Being a dick to people is not a legal right.
    - behnamoh 3y ago
      > Being a dick to people is not a legal right. It's not illegal either.
      - wpietri 3y ago
        Depending on how one does it, that's true. But that's also not relevant here. Twitter as a private entity does not have to just say, "Welp, it's legal" to anything that happens on their site.
        behnamoh 3y ago
        They “don’t have to” say it but they legally can.
        stale2002 3y ago
        Originally you asked "that you think have improved things". And then someone gave a valid response. And then you responded to this response by saying "Twitter as a private entity does not have to just say, "Welp, it's legal" to anything that happens on their site." This response is a non sequitur. Nobody in this thread said that twitter is forced to do anything. Instead, the original claim is that this was an improvement. And yes, twitter is allowed to make this change where they censor less things.
        wpietri 3y ago
        I believe you mean "non sequitur", but my comment wasn't one of those either. The claim I'm responding to was in the a part you failed to quote, "censorship". Censorship is generally meant as suppression of content, not behavior. In the case described, Twitter was cracking down on harassment, not specific content. As a clear example, imagine I call you up at all hours of the day and night, reciting the Bill of Rights every time you answer. When you stop answering, I show up out front of your house with a bullhorn and start reading the Federalist Papers at maximum volume. When you call the police and they haul me off, is that censorship? In typical usage, no, because the problem is not my ideas expressed.
- somethingreen 3y ago
  Before: denial of violent events gets you blocked, disinfo accounts get marked and shadowbanned. After: reporting on e.g. Russia invasion of Ukraine gets you shadowbanned, troll farm accounts get boosted once they pay for Blue. Definite improvement, if you run a state sponsored propaganda troll farm.
  - behnamoh 3y ago
    Much of that “disinfo” you’re referring to turned out to be legit info.
farhanhubble 3y ago
Twitter used to be my key source of technology research and almost all the folks I used to see in my timeline are either dormant or gone now. On top of that I see two tabs with mostly irrelevant stuff from someone far far afar in the network. Earlier I used to see irrelevant ads. Now I see suspicious ones, like one promising an AI girlfriend and another one promoting some dubious bitcoin token and random people promoting themselves.

tomrod 3y ago

Your comments reminds me of the metaphor of boiling a frog. Twitters users, the advertisers, have noticed. Thus the revenue decrease. Twitter's product, sets of eyeballs, are still around (despite being compositionally a different population, mostly).

DonHopkins 3y ago

[flagged]

larksimian 3y ago
You follow some weird accounts if that's what you see in your feed.
the_doctah 3y ago
[flagged]

wpietri 3y ago

Oh? What are some examples of the "censorship is not like before" that you think have improved things?

the_doctah 3y ago
People aren't getting banned for telling "journalists" to learn to code.
- wpietri 3y ago
  People were getting banned for harassing individual laid-off journalists. A tweet expressing a view about good jobs for journalists changing industries was not ever a problem, so it wasn't a free-speech concern. Being a dick to people is not a legal right.
  - behnamoh 3y ago
    > Being a dick to people is not a legal right. It's not illegal either.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      Depending on how one does it, that's true. But that's also not relevant here. Twitter as a private entity does not have to just say, "Welp, it's legal" to anything that happens on their site.
      - behnamoh 3y ago
        They “don’t have to” say it but they legally can.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        Originally you asked "that you think have improved things". And then someone gave a valid response. And then you responded to this response by saying "Twitter as a private entity does not have to just say, "Welp, it's legal" to anything that happens on their site." This response is a non sequitur. Nobody in this thread said that twitter is forced to do anything. Instead, the original claim is that this was an improvement. And yes, twitter is allowed to make this change where they censor less things.
        wpietri 3y ago
        I believe you mean "non sequitur", but my comment wasn't one of those either. The claim I'm responding to was in the a part you failed to quote, "censorship". Censorship is generally meant as suppression of content, not behavior. In the case described, Twitter was cracking down on harassment, not specific content. As a clear example, imagine I call you up at all hours of the day and night, reciting the Bill of Rights every time you answer. When you stop answering, I show up out front of your house with a bullhorn and start reading the Federalist Papers at maximum volume. When you call the police and they haul me off, is that censorship? In typical usage, no, because the problem is not my ideas expressed.
somethingreen 3y ago
Before: denial of violent events gets you blocked, disinfo accounts get marked and shadowbanned. After: reporting on e.g. Russia invasion of Ukraine gets you shadowbanned, troll farm accounts get boosted once they pay for Blue. Definite improvement, if you run a state sponsored propaganda troll farm.
- behnamoh 3y ago
  Much of that “disinfo” you’re referring to turned out to be legit info.

farhanhubble 3y ago

Twitter used to be my key source of technology research and almost all the folks I used to see in my timeline are either dormant or gone now. On top of that I see two tabs with mostly irrelevant stuff from someone far far afar in the network. Earlier I used to see irrelevant ads. Now I see suspicious ones, like one promising an AI girlfriend and another one promoting some dubious bitcoin token and random people promoting themselves.