10 ms·

I can't help but contrast this response with the dismissive reactions towards censorship and the Twitter Files. Turns out, it actually is an important source of

by slily 3y ago

I can't help but contrast this response with the dismissive reactions towards censorship and the Twitter Files. Turns out, it actually is an important source of information. Are we about to see op-eds about how it needs to be public or regulated like utility companies? :) Aside from that, critical information is not exclusively posted on Twitter, although it used to be "locked" behind a radio or a TV receiver. An online account is not the insurmountable hurdle that you paint it as.

skyyler 3y ago
TV receivers didn't come with built-in user tracking. You could get user tracking added by a company called Nielsen but they actually paid you a small sum for your data. I think this is quite different.
- slily 3y ago
  Sure, I do not have a Facebook account for similar reasons despite hearing that a lot of valuable information and networks are on that platform. Ten years ago I might have complained about it loudly, but nowadays I tend to think about things more pragmatically. Or at least that's what I tell myself after I caved and bought a smartphone after resisting for over a decade since they became ubiquitous :) I didn't use Twitter for the better part of the last decade and don't feel like I missed anything important. Idem with Facebook that I haven't touched in over ten years. If I cared enough about defeating trackers I could spin up a personal Nitter instance with a pseudonymous account, otherwise I see it as the price to pay to have access to such a large volume of information instantaneously, and I would rather be tracked by private interests than by the government. I also find it frustrating when any organization, government or otherwise, only publishes information on restricted channels, but that is nothing new.
  - skyyler 3y ago
    >I also find it frustrating when any organization, government or otherwise, only publishes information on restricted channels Then we agree :)

by slily 3y ago

skyyler 3y ago

TV receivers didn't come with built-in user tracking. You could get user tracking added by a company called Nielsen but they actually paid you a small sum for your data. I think this is quite different.

slily 3y ago
Sure, I do not have a Facebook account for similar reasons despite hearing that a lot of valuable information and networks are on that platform. Ten years ago I might have complained about it loudly, but nowadays I tend to think about things more pragmatically. Or at least that's what I tell myself after I caved and bought a smartphone after resisting for over a decade since they became ubiquitous :) I didn't use Twitter for the better part of the last decade and don't feel like I missed anything important. Idem with Facebook that I haven't touched in over ten years. If I cared enough about defeating trackers I could spin up a personal Nitter instance with a pseudonymous account, otherwise I see it as the price to pay to have access to such a large volume of information instantaneously, and I would rather be tracked by private interests than by the government. I also find it frustrating when any organization, government or otherwise, only publishes information on restricted channels, but that is nothing new.
- skyyler 3y ago
  >I also find it frustrating when any organization, government or otherwise, only publishes information on restricted channels Then we agree :)