4 ms·

I suspect a large number of the user base here has no issue with X or more to the point, the person that owns X.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Throwing out everything written, no matter who the author is, on a publishing platform, just because I don't like the owner? That seems a bit extreme. You're letting the owner (or your hatred of the owner) define who you're willing to listen to. That seems rather unwise.
- ggm 2y ago
  It's advocacy. People want to remove the influence the owner has on public discourse. Advocacy, like strike action does things which have short term pain because of a belief in a goal. Also, we implicitly make these choices all the time, by not listening to Fox, or Pravda, or Al Jazeera or a host of channels, by chosing not to pay, not to bypass the pay wall. I do not disagree that it seems extreme. It's dichotomous behaviour to me. But, it's human, and normal. I don't personally think everyone who remains on X is evil or against my world view. I just find I'm happier off it and ignoring it. (I'm sure you know this. I'm not trying to school you, we're just making observations from different sides of the fence but the fence is there and we're in agreement about that if nothing else)
  - ThrowawayR2 2y ago
    > "People want to remove the influence the owner has on public discourse." Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution, strengthening them. And now that the leftists are on the back foot, deplatforming is going to be even less effective. It's just doubling down on a losing strategy. That being said, I'm all in favor of blocking X links as HN submissions anyway. They almost always seem to be off topic or low value.
    - soundnote 2y ago
      > Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution Is it delusion anymore if you're systematically barred from everywhere? The Twitter Files also exist, showing active government-driven censorship efforts.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
  Free market, if I disagree with someone's life style I'm free to not give them my business.
- meristohm 2y ago
  When the owner of a previously public-ish, sometimes-useful platform makes it preferentially their own platform, and they've indicated they think acting like Hitler (or his sycophants) is okay, will you continue to use that software and social network? Twitter seems an MMORPG, anyway; nonessential, possibly entertaining but with a lot of idling, and ultimately a waste of time. Privatizing public services for profit doesn't feel in line with what I understand to be a healthier path, that of public luxury, private sufficiency.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  The owner of said publishing platform has already limited who I can listen to by breaking his site so badly that links there usually don't work. I have no idea whether this occurred through engineering incompetence or as an attempt to strong-arm people into creating accounts, but it hardly matters; either way, links to x.com are nearly worthless.

Throwing out everything written, no matter who the author is, on a publishing platform, just because I don't like the owner? That seems a bit extreme. You're letting the owner (or your hatred of the owner) define who you're willing to listen to. That seems rather unwise.

ggm 2y ago
It's advocacy. People want to remove the influence the owner has on public discourse. Advocacy, like strike action does things which have short term pain because of a belief in a goal. Also, we implicitly make these choices all the time, by not listening to Fox, or Pravda, or Al Jazeera or a host of channels, by chosing not to pay, not to bypass the pay wall. I do not disagree that it seems extreme. It's dichotomous behaviour to me. But, it's human, and normal. I don't personally think everyone who remains on X is evil or against my world view. I just find I'm happier off it and ignoring it. (I'm sure you know this. I'm not trying to school you, we're just making observations from different sides of the fence but the fence is there and we're in agreement about that if nothing else)
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago
  > "People want to remove the influence the owner has on public discourse." Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution, strengthening them. And now that the leftists are on the back foot, deplatforming is going to be even less effective. It's just doubling down on a losing strategy. That being said, I'm all in favor of blocking X links as HN submissions anyway. They almost always seem to be off topic or low value.
  - soundnote 2y ago
    > Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution Is it delusion anymore if you're systematically barred from everywhere? The Twitter Files also exist, showing active government-driven censorship efforts.
rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
Free market, if I disagree with someone's life style I'm free to not give them my business.
meristohm 2y ago
When the owner of a previously public-ish, sometimes-useful platform makes it preferentially their own platform, and they've indicated they think acting like Hitler (or his sycophants) is okay, will you continue to use that software and social network? Twitter seems an MMORPG, anyway; nonessential, possibly entertaining but with a lot of idling, and ultimately a waste of time. Privatizing public services for profit doesn't feel in line with what I understand to be a healthier path, that of public luxury, private sufficiency.
marssaxman 2y ago
The owner of said publishing platform has already limited who I can listen to by breaking his site so badly that links there usually don't work. I have no idea whether this occurred through engineering incompetence or as an attempt to strong-arm people into creating accounts, but it hardly matters; either way, links to x.com are nearly worthless.