4 ms·

> it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories. In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused i

> it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories. In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused information that I first started using Twitter for. If anything, X has improved in pulling in information from more industry players than I was seeing before, so I consider it to be an even more compelling product now. But perhaps that same algorithm improvement is what you ultimately mean? As in, that X has become better at finding the information you want to see, so if you have an interest in "right wing" or conspiracy content then it is a greater likelihood of it exposing you to that than the Twitter of yore did?

dktoao 2y ago
Make a burner account and log in to it. You will see what the parent comment is talking about.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Implying that is how people use X? Continually creating new burner accounts, not giving "the algorithm" what it needs to provide what they really want to see? Seems unlikely. I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.
wsintra2022 2y ago
Just yesterday the Guardian newspaper put out a statement saying they will no longer be posting to x/twitter cause it’s gone down the toilet. https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-no-longer-post-on-x-twitter-elon-musk https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-n...
- randomdata 2y ago
  Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. Good on them for realizing and backing away, I guess, but won't they still feed other platforms? It does not appear that they are willing to halt production on that realization. Not to mention that this encourages others to still share their content on X, defeating the whole intent of no longer posting... The story doesn't add up. On second thought, this is clearly an advertisement disguised as news trying to latch onto searches for Twitter/X. They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place. X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out, like the aforementioned industry practitioners sharing what they are doing in industry.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    > Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning. > They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place This is your claim - presented without evidence. You are also making multiple claims, also that The Guardian is publishing (essentially only) news on X and not also reactions, commentary and other content to X. > X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out The changes in the algorithm seem to have shifted this. News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices. The null hypothesis here would be that X is a place for nothing and beyond that - "maybe, or maybe not". I'm curious what evidence there is for X being an effective vehicle for 'personal' news distribution over time. Without that evidence, we should not accept any such claims.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning. Go on. There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it. But as they are not backing away from producing the content on the same concern, the association doesn't add up at all. > This is your claim - presented without evidence. Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it. Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it. > News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices. Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place. While the character limit isn't what it once was, the entire format of the service remains not particularly amenable to that kind of content. It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information, like something they did at work. There are much better services for news publishers. That is where the users are. That is where publisher effort is going to be best spent. Of course you are not going to waste your time posting news on X for that reason.
KaiserPro 2y ago
If you use lists, then you probably won't notice that much. However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme. Just wildly off the deepend scams or abuse. Before you could just filter out that stuff as it was fairly rare. but its just everywhere.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme. That's all I ever read. I only follow a small number of people who produce high quality content related to my industry, though. Perhaps that is what primes the "For You" page to say within the same realm and not go off the rails as you suggest? I'm sure you are right that garbage in, garbage out applies. But why feed it garbage?
  - KaiserPro 2y ago
    I think the issue is that I follow people who had diverse opinions that were different to mine, from across the spectrum. In the old times, you could see _why_ a tweet appeared in the stream (as in x follows, y liked, z replied) so curation could happen. But that's gone because musk finally figured out that him liking porn tweets was public. Before I could say "I don't like edgelord content" and that class of tweet disappeared. Hence the utility of lists for me. It allows me to follow people who regularly like content that I hate, but allows me to see what they tweet. So, you are indeed right. I think I follow more than one subject, which causes the issue.

dktoao 2y ago

Make a burner account and log in to it. You will see what the parent comment is talking about.

randomdata 2y ago
Implying that is how people use X? Continually creating new burner accounts, not giving "the algorithm" what it needs to provide what they really want to see? Seems unlikely. I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.

wsintra2022 2y ago

Just yesterday the Guardian newspaper put out a statement saying they will no longer be posting to x/twitter cause it’s gone down the toilet. https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-no-longer-post-on-x-twitter-elon-musk https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-n...

randomdata 2y ago
Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. Good on them for realizing and backing away, I guess, but won't they still feed other platforms? It does not appear that they are willing to halt production on that realization. Not to mention that this encourages others to still share their content on X, defeating the whole intent of no longer posting... The story doesn't add up. On second thought, this is clearly an advertisement disguised as news trying to latch onto searches for Twitter/X. They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place. X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out, like the aforementioned industry practitioners sharing what they are doing in industry.
- seadan83 2y ago
  > Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning. > They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place This is your claim - presented without evidence. You are also making multiple claims, also that The Guardian is publishing (essentially only) news on X and not also reactions, commentary and other content to X. > X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out The changes in the algorithm seem to have shifted this. News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices. The null hypothesis here would be that X is a place for nothing and beyond that - "maybe, or maybe not". I'm curious what evidence there is for X being an effective vehicle for 'personal' news distribution over time. Without that evidence, we should not accept any such claims.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning. Go on. There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it. But as they are not backing away from producing the content on the same concern, the association doesn't add up at all. > This is your claim - presented without evidence. Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it. Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it. > News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices. Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place. While the character limit isn't what it once was, the entire format of the service remains not particularly amenable to that kind of content. It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information, like something they did at work. There are much better services for news publishers. That is where the users are. That is where publisher effort is going to be best spent. Of course you are not going to waste your time posting news on X for that reason.

KaiserPro 2y ago

If you use lists, then you probably won't notice that much. However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme. Just wildly off the deepend scams or abuse. Before you could just filter out that stuff as it was fairly rare. but its just everywhere.

randomdata 2y ago
> However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme. That's all I ever read. I only follow a small number of people who produce high quality content related to my industry, though. Perhaps that is what primes the "For You" page to say within the same realm and not go off the rails as you suggest? I'm sure you are right that garbage in, garbage out applies. But why feed it garbage?
- KaiserPro 2y ago
  I think the issue is that I follow people who had diverse opinions that were different to mine, from across the spectrum. In the old times, you could see _why_ a tweet appeared in the stream (as in x follows, y liked, z replied) so curation could happen. But that's gone because musk finally figured out that him liking porn tweets was public. Before I could say "I don't like edgelord content" and that class of tweet disappeared. Hence the utility of lists for me. It allows me to follow people who regularly like content that I hate, but allows me to see what they tweet. So, you are indeed right. I think I follow more than one subject, which causes the issue.