• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Resistance Twitter 2.0

Where will the resistance end up posting, mostly?

  • Bluesky

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • Threads

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Mastodon

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (please specify in comments)

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • On Planet X, we resist telepathically

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
theprestige said:
Terrible analogy. Everyone curates their own feed. If you're seeing unpleasant ideas, it's because you want to.
Click to expand...

No, this is flatly incorrect.

Even if you only view those you are following, its algorithm inserts tweets in the feed to drive engagement. I have never liked, followed or otherwise engaged with political content on twitter and yet the algorithm only inserts extreme political sentiment (both left and right) into my feed.
 
LiteBright said:
No, this is flatly incorrect.

Even if you only view those you are following, its algorithm inserts tweets in the feed to drive engagement. I have never liked, followed or otherwise engaged with political content on twitter and yet the algorithm only inserts extreme political sentiment (both left and right) into my feed.
Click to expand...

Honestly, how are you using Twitter? Ignore "For You" and just look at your "Following" feed. The only things that get inserted in that are adverts for holidays in China and inspirational lifestyle gurus.
 
Rolfe said:
Honestly, how are you using Twitter? Ignore "For You" and just look at your "Following" feed. The only things that get inserted in that are adverts for holidays in China and inspirational lifestyle gurus.
Click to expand...
The fact that you have carefully curated your feed does not mean that Twitter is not an abuse-ridden cesspit. My Twitter too was carefully curated and I too managed to avoid most of it. BlueSky is better. It does everything Twitter does except enable abusers and neo-nazis.
 
arthwollipot said:
The fact that you have carefully curated your feed does not mean that Twitter is not an abuse-ridden cesspit. My Twitter too was carefully curated and I too managed to avoid most of it. BlueSky is better. It does everything Twitter does except enable abusers and neo-nazis.
Click to expand...
Bluesky has more content to choose from?
 
LiteBright said:
No, this is flatly incorrect.

Even if you only view those you are following, its algorithm inserts tweets in the feed to drive engagement. I have never liked, followed or otherwise engaged with political content on twitter and yet the algorithm only inserts extreme political sentiment (both left and right) into my feed.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know if Bluesky like the other social media do simply tune their software to create "engagement". Unfortunately all the social media companies (and most media sites) have valued engagement over other metrics. If people want to know why there is so much disquiet, such apparent polarisation, hatred etc. "these days" it is because the social media platforms have rated engagement as a key measure of success, and engagement is what they have sold. Sadly the easiest way to drive "engagement" with humans is with the more negatives aspects of our behaviour such as mob behaviour, us & them and so on.
 
You want all that political content, really, you do. If you simply engage with hobby style content like cat videos, then you're not part of the resistance now, are you? Oh no, not only do you want to keep tabs on the enemy you want to keep abreast of the latest resistance content, like right now everybody is stocking up to the official food of the resistance, Froot Loops.

That's right people, RFK Jr. is coming for your food additives and Froot Loops are going to end up being dull and pale in the upcoming dystopian hellscape. So stock up. By the case, by the pallet, just like it's toilet paper at the beginning of the pandemic because the "authentic" Froot Loops are going to end up being the underground currency of the resistance and who doesn't want to be an underground billionaire?
 
Rolfe said:
Honestly, how are you using Twitter? Ignore "For You" and just look at your "Following" feed. The only things that get inserted in that are adverts for holidays in China and inspirational lifestyle gurus.
Click to expand...

I do only look at the "following" feed and yet every 10th tweet or so is from someone I don't follow and is being inserted by the algorithm. If you're not seeing that, I honestly don't know why we have such different experiences. Perhaps due to my light use of the platform, the algorithm identifies me as someone ripe for further engagement and inserts toxic politics to try and bait me in to greater use. I really don't know.

Not to mention, it would be nice to check the replies to a tweet I've made without having to see people flogging racist memes or a man selling his "full length masturbation videos" or any number of other objectionable things.

Even if one isn't bothered with all that, at the end of the day using X is not that different than being a trump voter. You might not yourself be a racist spreader of disinformation, but if you use X you are perfectly fine supporting one. I, for one, am not.
 
I was going to ask if the insults were deliberate or accidental.
There is a casual smugness in the TDS camp that shows how important X remains, and to be frank, it will remain the platform to help the Democrats return to relevance.
I have my theories on how this will happen.
 
arthwollipot said:
So is the idea that Musk cared about protecting free speech/expression.
Click to expand...
He does care about free speech.
Only a conspiracy theory would counter that logical proposition.
He is not Stuey from family guy at last count.
 
Shared my recipe for Froot Loops based turkey stuffing over on Bluesky today. Even got a like from my follower (thanks mom :))

This resistance...It's going to be delicious.
 
Trausti said:
Any reason will do. But don't BS about it. The idea that the left cared about protecting free speech/expression is laughable.
Click to expand...
No, they do care about free speech - just not hate speech and dangerous lies, which is perfectly reasonable. Free speech has always had limits.

The only problem is, who gets to decide which speech crosses the line? Twitter permanently banned Trump on the basis that he was spreading lies about the 2020 election being 'stolen' by Biden, and that this was inciting violence - ie. the equivalent of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. They had a point. But they took it too far. Here are the two tweets that Twitter decided warranted a permanent ban:-

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

74,223,975 people voted for Trump, so technically his assertion that it was 75,000,000 is a 'lie' - but should he have been banned for rounding up instead of down? It actually rates as one of the truest things Trump has ever said! The second tweet is completely innocuous.

Now of course Twitter could ban anyone if it suited them. But there was huge pressure from liberals to ban Trump, even before the insurrection. IMO that was counterproductive. He was President, and we had a right to hear what he had to say no matter how upsetting it might be. The correct way to counter bad speech is with good speech, not muzzling those who say things you don't like. Only under exceptional circumstances should a political body put pressure on a private business to suppress speech from opposing voices. The two tweets above do not meet that criteria.

I said at the time that trying to muzzle Trump was a bad idea that would blow back in our faces, and I was right. Mind you some people think it was good because it goaded Musk into buying Twitter, which they are hoping will seriously damage him. It certainly has given them plenty of ammunition. Nevertheless it doesn't change the fact that Twitter bowed to political pressure from the left in permanently banning Trump, and Musk was right to unban him after a poll of Twitter users supported it.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
All the people who were banned for criticising him.

There's lots of them on BlueSky. Try looking for them there.
Click to expand...
No, I will not join another social media site to do your research for you (facebook was bad enough - fool me once, never again!). You say Musk banned every person who critizised him. That's a bold claim that needs to be supported with evidence if we are to take it seriously.

But I'm not an unreasonable person, and I have an open mind. Just show me evidence that Musk routinely bans those who criticize him on X, and I will believe you. But looking for them on Bluesky won't do it, as those users are largely self-selected Musk haters.

Bluesky
In the weeks following the 2024 United States presidential election on November 5, 2024, in which former president Donald Trump was re-elected for a second non-consecutive term, millions of Twitter users from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada joined Bluesky. By November 13, Bluesky had reached 15 million users, growing by around 1 million users per day and reaching the top of the Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store in the United States. On November 19, Bluesky officially crossed 20 million users, tripling its userbase within 3 months. This surge also triggered a significant uptick of moderation reports, including child sexual abuse material; Bluesky Safety noted on November 16, "In the past 24 hours, we have received more than 42,000 reports (an all-time high for one day). We're receiving about 3,000 reports/hour. To put that into context, in all of 2023, we received 360k reports".
Click to expand...

Buesky - Twitter for liberals, and just as much a cesspool.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Are they not genuine TikTok posts they're forwarding in order to mock them? I've not heard them accused of making stuff up.
Click to expand...
Really? Probably because, you know, you didn't care to look. It's right up your alley.

The most recent was libsoftiktok falsely saying that hysterectomies were being performed on minors at Boston Children's Hospital, resulting in bomb threats. Cause that's what sick children need. Their hospitals being shut down due to lies from a whiny, miserable ◊◊◊◊ on tiktok to make herself feel important.

I'm not shocked in the slightest that theprestige and others of his...mindset don't know, don't care, or are willfully trying to ignore this. Really putting the S in skeptic, right?
 
plague311 said:
Really? Probably because, you know, you didn't care to look. It's right up your alley.

The most recent was libsoftiktok falsely saying that hysterectomies were being performed on minors at Boston Children's Hospital, resulting in bomb threats. Cause that's what sick children need. Their hospitals being shut down due to lies from a whiny, miserable ◊◊◊◊ on tiktok to make herself feel important.

I'm not shocked in the slightest that theprestige and others of his...mindset don't know, don't care, or are willfully trying to ignore this. Really putting the S in skeptic, right?
Click to expand...
I'm not on social media at all, so it was a genuine question.

I'm rather puzzled about this "right up your alley" projection on your part. I'm not in any camp and I actually detest echo chambers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom