5 ms·

Unfortunate that by flooding twitter with divisive content, those responsible have caused people to trust it much less.

jandrese 2y ago
But have probably increased the total traffic flow. It's the Fox News effect, outrageous statements and inflamed rhetoric keep people engaged. This is why algorithms that maximize for engagement inevitably amplify the worst people and corrode the discussion.
- hn1986 2y ago
  Not really, usage is down from before he bought it.
n4r9 2y ago
Perhaps some people trust it less. But others are very gullible and willing to stick within their echo chamber. Here in the UK, we're experiencing a wave of violent riots by right-wing thugs who have (at least in part) been stirred up by fake news spread on X about the ethnicity of a recent assault suspect.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  It's not about the ethnicity of one suspect. It's about a continual disregard of the will of the people who don't want the UK to turn into North Africa or Afghanistan. The government seems hell-bent on flooding the UK and EU with migrants to destroy any social cohesion. Did you know that thousands of people have been arrested in the UK over the last few years over social media posts? Some freedom you got there... By the way, did you see the multiple instances of reporters being surrounded and intimidated (maybe even attacked) by "diverse" protesters out there as they claimed that protests were mostly peaceful? I have, and I'm on a different continent. You won't get good information unless you look for it. The mainstream media and most popular online stuff is completely controlled in most of the world.
  - crtasm 2y ago
    Could I suggest this piece from the director of Hope Not Hate? It sounds like you've been reading people repeating the claims that there is somehow a justification for the violence. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/05/far-right-riots-legitimate-anger-racist-violence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/0...
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Incipient 2y ago
        It's very hard to trust any source on this topic, which makes it impossible to get a sense of scale, however anecdotal evidence definitely supports 'incompatible' immigration being a problem. Its not to say we don't have internal problems already, but that doesn't justify importing new problems. I'm not too sure what the rationale behind the record immigration happening across the "West" is (UK, USA, AU, EU). Is it a population decline thing?
      - bloopernova 2y ago
        15 million people would cause a refugee crisis. There would be huge camps and managing them would be an enormous effort. The actual asylum seeker numbers: 2020: 11,840 2021: 11,454 2022: 25,519 2023: 60,000 2024: 60,000+ Not anywhere near "15 million"
        n4r9 2y ago
        That's comparable to the UK figures. In 2023 there were around 80k asylum seekers and refugees, making up around 11% of total immigration. That's the highest since a peak of similar height in 2002. Now, as then, asylum seekers are primarily people from wartorn countries like Aghanistan, Ukraine, or Syria, or people who face persecution for their beliefs or identity. They are generally choosing the UK because they have cultural ties (sometimes due to historic colonialisation by the UK) and/or can speak the language. What gets me is the current obsession over small boat crossings. This is less than half of all asylum seekers, i.e. 5% or less of total immigration. Most of these people are from wartorn countries, have a valid claim to asylum, and some kind of link to the country. I find it abhorrent that certain demagogues are manipulating the narrative to make it look like this is one of the biggest issues facing the UK. We should absolutely tackle the people-smuggling gangs that are putting migrants' lives at risk by overloading them onto dinghies and shoving them into the Channel. One of the best ways to do this would be to work on providing a safe alternative path to asylum, as for example exists for Ukrainians and Hong Kongers.
wakawaka28 2y ago
I trusted it much less when the government was ordering pre-Musk Twitter to take down stuff they didn't like for political reasons. Unfortunately most other social media is controlled in that manner.
- guax 2y ago
  Number of take downs increased and X stopped providing exact numbers and copy of the requests. Journalists are banned and cisgender became a filtered curse word. You're deluded.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Elon Musk enforcing his preferences is totally different from random government officials issuing takedown requests through a designated portal. You may not have been aware of that but now you are. Go and look at the exposé by Matt Taibi.
    - guax 2y ago
      X has complied with more government requests than Twitter. And removed the transparency info about them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds/#:~:text=Twitter%20has%20fully%20complied%20with,the%20billionaire%27s%20promises%20to%20limit https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/tw...
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        There was no transparency info about takedowns before. That was the whole point of Matt Taibbi's exposé. Old Twitter absolutely wasn't transparent about their hard/soft censorship so any article from the mainstream claiming there is such a difference is suspect. Furthermore, the old algorithm was extremely biased in favor of extreme liberals, a fact which was common knowledge to many conservatives and independents, yet no liberal seems to have admitted it or complained about it. In fact they only complain now that they occasionally see things that they don't like, stuff that the old Twitter would have buried or banned. I'm not saying X is without fault or free of unwarranted censorship, but it is a hell of a lot better than it used to be in that regard. You can easily tell how free it is by how many people get butthurt about things they read on there. You don't need free speech to run with the crowd. You need it to say unpopular or politically controversial things.

But have probably increased the total traffic flow. It's the Fox News effect, outrageous statements and inflamed rhetoric keep people engaged. This is why algorithms that maximize for engagement inevitably amplify the worst people and corrode the discussion.

hn1986 2y ago
Not really, usage is down from before he bought it.

n4r9 2y ago

Perhaps some people trust it less. But others are very gullible and willing to stick within their echo chamber. Here in the UK, we're experiencing a wave of violent riots by right-wing thugs who have (at least in part) been stirred up by fake news spread on X about the ethnicity of a recent assault suspect.

wakawaka28 2y ago
It's not about the ethnicity of one suspect. It's about a continual disregard of the will of the people who don't want the UK to turn into North Africa or Afghanistan. The government seems hell-bent on flooding the UK and EU with migrants to destroy any social cohesion. Did you know that thousands of people have been arrested in the UK over the last few years over social media posts? Some freedom you got there... By the way, did you see the multiple instances of reporters being surrounded and intimidated (maybe even attacked) by "diverse" protesters out there as they claimed that protests were mostly peaceful? I have, and I'm on a different continent. You won't get good information unless you look for it. The mainstream media and most popular online stuff is completely controlled in most of the world.
- crtasm 2y ago
  Could I suggest this piece from the director of Hope Not Hate? It sounds like you've been reading people repeating the claims that there is somehow a justification for the violence. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/05/far-right-riots-legitimate-anger-racist-violence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/0...
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Incipient 2y ago
      It's very hard to trust any source on this topic, which makes it impossible to get a sense of scale, however anecdotal evidence definitely supports 'incompatible' immigration being a problem. Its not to say we don't have internal problems already, but that doesn't justify importing new problems. I'm not too sure what the rationale behind the record immigration happening across the "West" is (UK, USA, AU, EU). Is it a population decline thing?
    - bloopernova 2y ago
      15 million people would cause a refugee crisis. There would be huge camps and managing them would be an enormous effort. The actual asylum seeker numbers: 2020: 11,840 2021: 11,454 2022: 25,519 2023: 60,000 2024: 60,000+ Not anywhere near "15 million"
      - n4r9 2y ago
        That's comparable to the UK figures. In 2023 there were around 80k asylum seekers and refugees, making up around 11% of total immigration. That's the highest since a peak of similar height in 2002. Now, as then, asylum seekers are primarily people from wartorn countries like Aghanistan, Ukraine, or Syria, or people who face persecution for their beliefs or identity. They are generally choosing the UK because they have cultural ties (sometimes due to historic colonialisation by the UK) and/or can speak the language. What gets me is the current obsession over small boat crossings. This is less than half of all asylum seekers, i.e. 5% or less of total immigration. Most of these people are from wartorn countries, have a valid claim to asylum, and some kind of link to the country. I find it abhorrent that certain demagogues are manipulating the narrative to make it look like this is one of the biggest issues facing the UK. We should absolutely tackle the people-smuggling gangs that are putting migrants' lives at risk by overloading them onto dinghies and shoving them into the Channel. One of the best ways to do this would be to work on providing a safe alternative path to asylum, as for example exists for Ukrainians and Hong Kongers.

wakawaka28 2y ago

I trusted it much less when the government was ordering pre-Musk Twitter to take down stuff they didn't like for political reasons. Unfortunately most other social media is controlled in that manner.

guax 2y ago
Number of take downs increased and X stopped providing exact numbers and copy of the requests. Journalists are banned and cisgender became a filtered curse word. You're deluded.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Elon Musk enforcing his preferences is totally different from random government officials issuing takedown requests through a designated portal. You may not have been aware of that but now you are. Go and look at the exposé by Matt Taibi.
  - guax 2y ago
    X has complied with more government requests than Twitter. And removed the transparency info about them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds/#:~:text=Twitter%20has%20fully%20complied%20with,the%20billionaire%27s%20promises%20to%20limit https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/tw...
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      There was no transparency info about takedowns before. That was the whole point of Matt Taibbi's exposé. Old Twitter absolutely wasn't transparent about their hard/soft censorship so any article from the mainstream claiming there is such a difference is suspect. Furthermore, the old algorithm was extremely biased in favor of extreme liberals, a fact which was common knowledge to many conservatives and independents, yet no liberal seems to have admitted it or complained about it. In fact they only complain now that they occasionally see things that they don't like, stuff that the old Twitter would have buried or banned. I'm not saying X is without fault or free of unwarranted censorship, but it is a hell of a lot better than it used to be in that regard. You can easily tell how free it is by how many people get butthurt about things they read on there. You don't need free speech to run with the crowd. You need it to say unpopular or politically controversial things.