3 ms·

> Used to be It still is isn't it?

mattl 3y ago
Less so as people are leaving
slantedview 3y ago
It's becoming less so. During the start of the war in Gaza, many journalists lamented how terrible Twitter has become for the thing it was best at: breaking news. There are many problems, but one of them is that intentionally misleading blue check accounts are boosted above actual journalists. Slate wrote a piece on the whole situation: https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/x-twitter-gaza-israel-misinformation-elon-musk.html https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/x-twitter-gaza-israel-m...
- camhart 3y ago
  Slate is far left leaning, and growing more extreme with time. See https://www.allsides.com/news-source/slate https://www.allsides.com/news-source/slate. I'd take that article with a heavy grain of salt. They also use two data points of failed moderation (not a lack of moderation) and try to paint the entire platform based on it. That happened plenty under the old regime as well. If the actual journalists paid for the blue checkmark, that'd solve the issue wouldn't it? Twitter prior to Musk was a sinking ship (cancel culture exaggerated the problem). Asking people to pay is one of the attempts to solve that problem. If a journalist is unwilling to pay, they're going to be deprioritized and can't really complain about it. But Twitter has been very open and transparent about the need to reduce bots by paying for the checkmark.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  > intentionally misleading blue check accounts are boosted above actual journalists Actual journalists are often blue ticks and intentionally misleading so this is as pot/kettle/black situation if there ever was one.
simonw 3y ago
It can be, but it very much depends on the context. It's not quite the same as breaking news, but it's illustrative that a lot of the tech conferences I follow no longer have much if any of a Twitter back-channel. It's just not cool to hang out there any more, at least for some interest groups.
sangnoir 3y ago
Twitter is - now more than ever - also the first place for eyewitness accounts for things that didn't happen. For me, that nullifies most of the value of early breaking news on Twitter, I generally wait until it's verified by other more trustworthy platforms. Edit: in the past, the rampant misinformation and botnet voting rings were limited to "Trending Hashtags". Now bad actors and edgelords have direct access to my (and everyone else's) default view ("For you")
beanjuiceII 3y ago
it is, but the anti-elon fanboys want you to think its not
KittenInABox 3y ago
No, I found it extremely difficult to use during a school shooting affecting family of mine. Fuckton of bots and irrelevant shit.

Less so as people are leaving

It's becoming less so. During the start of the war in Gaza, many journalists lamented how terrible Twitter has become for the thing it was best at: breaking news. There are many problems, but one of them is that intentionally misleading blue check accounts are boosted above actual journalists. Slate wrote a piece on the whole situation: https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/x-twitter-gaza-israel-misinformation-elon-musk.html https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/x-twitter-gaza-israel-m...

camhart 3y ago
Slate is far left leaning, and growing more extreme with time. See https://www.allsides.com/news-source/slate https://www.allsides.com/news-source/slate. I'd take that article with a heavy grain of salt. They also use two data points of failed moderation (not a lack of moderation) and try to paint the entire platform based on it. That happened plenty under the old regime as well. If the actual journalists paid for the blue checkmark, that'd solve the issue wouldn't it? Twitter prior to Musk was a sinking ship (cancel culture exaggerated the problem). Asking people to pay is one of the attempts to solve that problem. If a journalist is unwilling to pay, they're going to be deprioritized and can't really complain about it. But Twitter has been very open and transparent about the need to reduce bots by paying for the checkmark.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nvm0n2 3y ago
> intentionally misleading blue check accounts are boosted above actual journalists Actual journalists are often blue ticks and intentionally misleading so this is as pot/kettle/black situation if there ever was one.

simonw 3y ago

It can be, but it very much depends on the context. It's not quite the same as breaking news, but it's illustrative that a lot of the tech conferences I follow no longer have much if any of a Twitter back-channel. It's just not cool to hang out there any more, at least for some interest groups.

sangnoir 3y ago

Twitter is - now more than ever - also the first place for eyewitness accounts for things that didn't happen. For me, that nullifies most of the value of early breaking news on Twitter, I generally wait until it's verified by other more trustworthy platforms. Edit: in the past, the rampant misinformation and botnet voting rings were limited to "Trending Hashtags". Now bad actors and edgelords have direct access to my (and everyone else's) default view ("For you")

beanjuiceII 3y ago

it is, but the anti-elon fanboys want you to think its not

KittenInABox 3y ago

No, I found it extremely difficult to use during a school shooting affecting family of mine. Fuckton of bots and irrelevant shit.