3 ms·

It would be much easier to leave the toxic dump that is X, if the other platforms were not almost as toxic just in the opposite direction. The best option woul

by poszlem 9mo ago

It would be much easier to leave the toxic dump that is X, if the other platforms were not almost as toxic just in the opposite direction. The best option would be to have a separate platform for the european heads of state to communicate with people that is not as partisan and crazy as X, BlueSky or Mastodon. edit: not to mention that with how things are set up now, the people who actually add value will probably leave X, while the ones who shouldn’t be there will stick around and end up with an even bigger, uncontested audience. And their arguments of the opposite don't convince me. If all dissenting voices leave, the platform does not necessarily disappear, instead, it often calcifies into a radicalization machine. They are arguing for moral victory but a strategic defeat. edit2: my biggest problem is not that they use X, but that they often use it exclusively, so your choice is to either follow them there or get what they are saying via a third party (a newspaper reprinting X or something).

mhitza 9mo ago
There is already https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/explore https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/explore running as an experiment for a while now. Nothing prevents them from setting up a friendlier instance (domain name) where they only allow registration for verified members, block and defederate liberally.
- poszlem 9mo ago
  They could also just post posters in the european commision hallways, they would probably have the same amount of reach from there. So what prevents them from actually setting up friendlier instances is that people simply do not go there.
  - robin_reala 9mo ago
    The EU Commission has an account on that instance and has 145k followers: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission (The rest have single-digit thousands to be fair: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/directory https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/directory)
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
surgical_fire 9mo ago
> The best option would be to have a separate platform for the european heads of state to communicate with people that is not as partisan and crazy as X, BlueSky or Mastodon Mastodon at least it not owned by any large US corporation, and therefore not subject to corporate whims of their leadership. > while the ones who shouldn’t be there will stick around and end up with an even bigger, uncontested audience. Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance.
- poszlem 9mo ago
  I agree that we should have something that is not US owned. > Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance. I think you underestimate the influence the european politicians have on the amount of people using X and the fact that they can also influence the american audience this way.
  - surgical_fire 9mo ago
    Perhaps I do. I worry, however, how politicians might perceive public opinion if they account the response on Twitter as reality.
skerit 9mo ago
Well Mastodon would make the most sense. They can run their own server with their own moderation policies while still federating with the broader network. The EU has actually already done this—the European Commission runs its own Mastodon instance. That's really the key point: with Mastodon, you control your own space. So in theory you can create your own little bubble with your own rules. Which is basically what Truth Social did, since it is also built on Mastodon, but they stripped out all the federation code—so it's just a walled garden that happens to use Mastodon's codebase. Maybe for the best.
analognoise 9mo ago
> not almost as toxic just in the opposite direction. It’s not toxic to be like “everyone should have the same rights, invading Greenland is stupid, let’s all have healthcare.” We can compare toxicities accurately, and comparing the cesspool of “thought” that is X to…anything else? Is like comparing Polonium 210 to Tylenol. Sure, they’re both toxic, technically, but there is some critical distinction between them, right?

by poszlem 9mo ago

mhitza 9mo ago

There is already https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/explore https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/explore running as an experiment for a while now. Nothing prevents them from setting up a friendlier instance (domain name) where they only allow registration for verified members, block and defederate liberally.

poszlem 9mo ago
They could also just post posters in the european commision hallways, they would probably have the same amount of reach from there. So what prevents them from actually setting up friendlier instances is that people simply do not go there.
- robin_reala 9mo ago
  The EU Commission has an account on that instance and has 145k followers: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission (The rest have single-digit thousands to be fair: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/directory https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/directory)
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

surgical_fire 9mo ago

> The best option would be to have a separate platform for the european heads of state to communicate with people that is not as partisan and crazy as X, BlueSky or Mastodon Mastodon at least it not owned by any large US corporation, and therefore not subject to corporate whims of their leadership. > while the ones who shouldn’t be there will stick around and end up with an even bigger, uncontested audience. Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance.

poszlem 9mo ago
I agree that we should have something that is not US owned. > Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance. I think you underestimate the influence the european politicians have on the amount of people using X and the fact that they can also influence the american audience this way.
- surgical_fire 9mo ago
  Perhaps I do. I worry, however, how politicians might perceive public opinion if they account the response on Twitter as reality.

skerit 9mo ago

Well Mastodon would make the most sense. They can run their own server with their own moderation policies while still federating with the broader network. The EU has actually already done this—the European Commission runs its own Mastodon instance. That's really the key point: with Mastodon, you control your own space. So in theory you can create your own little bubble with your own rules. Which is basically what Truth Social did, since it is also built on Mastodon, but they stripped out all the federation code—so it's just a walled garden that happens to use Mastodon's codebase. Maybe for the best.

analognoise 9mo ago

> not almost as toxic just in the opposite direction. It’s not toxic to be like “everyone should have the same rights, invading Greenland is stupid, let’s all have healthcare.” We can compare toxicities accurately, and comparing the cesspool of “thought” that is X to…anything else? Is like comparing Polonium 210 to Tylenol. Sure, they’re both toxic, technically, but there is some critical distinction between them, right?