EFF is leaving X

North Idaho specifically has been a hub for white power movements for a while: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/27/north-idaho-an...

Or these ones? https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fz...

FOH with that bullshit

I'd suggest you dig a little deeper into American history. For example, "America First" isn't a new slogan. It's been used in its current sense for at least a century. Murdoch via Roger Ailes poured oil on the fire, but that was only possible because the sentiment already existed here and always has.

LOL

American values?

Manifest destiny? Trail of tears? Japanese internment camps? Madison Square Garden Nazi rallies in the 1930s?

I'd argue that at least 30% of Americans throughout history have been white supremacists. Heck, the country was founded by rebelling against the British, that amongst other measures (many to do with taxes) wanted to limit Western expansion against non White peoples.

Shouldn't like, half of Oklahoma - LEGALLY - belong to Native Americans? Based on treaties the US has signed.

Yeah, similar situation for me. All the promises of an optimistic sci-fi future become hollow when one remembers that the person espousing them is openly and actively opposed to those optimistic ideals.

Even just the disingenuous boosting of obvious lies that are convenient to his worldview (claiming genuine curiosity), by a supposedly intelligent man, is gross enough.

[dead]

[flagged]

One of the five fundamental pillars of conservative thought, as phrased by wikipedia (which is itself merely paraphrasing Russel Kirk, a foundational of post-war American conservativatism), is:

> A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions.

Racism and bigotry are not errant additions to conservatism, they're a logical extension of one of its foundational pillars. (Though that is not to say that the left is not without its racism in bigotry as well, it's just less of a natural fit)

Anyone who doesn't think what Musk did was a Nazi salute, I encourage you to watch the video over and over, enough times so that you can memorize and replicate it, then go into work and do it in front of your manager, and see what happens.

Of course, as expected, the Elon Musk Defense League showed up right on time. Does he give out $100 for every post defending his honor online?

I think there are better things to focus on about Elon Musk, like his role in getting Trump elected, the misinfo tweets he reposts with "Exactly" and "Concerning" (where the top community note trivially debunks the tweet -- he doesn't care whether it's real), making a stink about the Epstein files until he was cool with Trump again, promoting right-wing slop like Gunther Eagleman, changing Twitter in general like how you can freely say the n-word now, how he went about DOGE, what he promotes vs what he's silent on.

But I've yet to see someone show video of a prominent democrat doing the same salute as Musk. Which is probably why it's left as an exercise for the reader to find.

That said, we don't need to speculate about his salute when you can look directly at the slop he posts on Twitter.

I guess we're at "it's your fault for having eyes" part of the defense of the action.

It seemed pretty blatant to me if you watch the whole video, the chest pound and the clear arm/hand extension really makes it difficult to see as anything else.

It was distinctly different from the stills of other politicians waving that often get used as comparison by trolls trying to defend it... when you compare videos the difference is not even questionable.

They are very demonstrably not making the same movement and I strongly feel like it would take someone trying to reason backwards from a predetermined conclusion to see this

My friend, please reflect on who in this exchange might be easily manipulated by clips on the internet.

> What about

No, that doesn't work here.

Only one of the individuals in this comparison has a Wikipedia page dedicated to the event and coverage of it.

When have they done that?

Also, when have they joked about it being a Nazi salute after the fact like Elon Musk did? https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976

When has that happened?

>What about when Zohran Mamdani or AOC or Kamala makes the EXACT SAME MOTION?

If they did, they'd make international news for the same reason.

They did not. A freeze frame of someone waving their hand ain't remotely close to the specific "from my heart to the stars" gesture that Elon Musk did twice in a row.

Which doesn't even matter as much as his long, established history of pushing white-supremacist views, supporting white supremacist movements, and using neo-nazi dog whistles (like posting 14 flag emojis at 14:14PM EST).

Personal question: are you a bot?

Your comment on vagueness misses its mark.

> business leader throwing those salutes and backing it up with talk of a "white homeland"

It is not every commenter's duty to cite their sources when you have the ability to easily infer the context and search the internet. These are very well documented actions that they refer to. Your attempts to drive sentiment through casting doubt are noticed.

>What do you mean _exactly_? Covering your statement is a shroud of vagueness doesn’t help form an opinion, only infuse more polarisation

Oh come on. Everyone who's been paying attention enough to warrant having opinions on the subject knows what the reference is to.

But if you just came out of a cryogenic freeze, they're talking about:

1. Elon Musk appearing to be giving a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration [1]

2. Elon Musk espousing and propagating white supremacist views nearly on a daily basis[2]

3. Elon Musk openly supporting borderline Neo-Nazi[3][4] German AfD party[5]

4. Elon Musk promulgating the myth of "white genocide"[6]

I guess if you somehow missed all of that over the past few years, you wouldn't know what the parent comment is about.

But in that case, you shouldn't be taking a part in this conversation, or opining about what would "infuse[sic] more polarisation".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/12/elon-musk...

[3] https://www.tpr.org/podcast/the-source/2024-07-31/frontline-...

[4] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-liais...

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/25/europe/elon-musk-germany-afd-...

[6] https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0lhfn68

[3]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2030202550259962338

He's most definitely talking about a white homeland [1][2]

[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1962406618886492245 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration

"Whites are under threat" + "immigrants are bad" ~= white homeland. Strip away the name and his posts could be any generic white supremacist.

Here it is:

https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2030202550259962338

That's just disgusting stuff. Gutter white nationalism.

I personally am not interested in the bigots of previous generations making those decisions any more than I want contemporary ones to.

> Not sure their ideology was such a win.

South Africa's transition away from being a nuclear apartheid state was an objective win for everyone, everywhere.

> It's grossly unfair to conflate white nationalism and white supremacy

No, it isn't. It's a distinction without a difference.

I know exactly how my grandparents would've reacted because I've seen it first-hand, and it's ugly and carries precisely zero validity. It's not to be emulated any more than someone who was born in 1850's skepticism towards automobiles and airplanes is.

You can call it white nationalism if you like but you are spouting the exact same talking points as white supremacists, you just prefer to buy it under a different brand.

This feels like the "technically it's hebephilia" argument in that drawing the distinction just makes your argument weaker for regular people.

> It's grossly unfair to conflate white nationalism and white supremacy. Your grandparents lived in a state that was close to 100% european descent

Why do you think that makes a difference?

Hint: white supremacy (believing whites are superior).

As someone who is so white they glow in the dark, no. They are exactly the same.

You don't speak for me, and I find you embarrassing.

What exactly would happen according to you? The state in question got more Mexicans or South Americans which are also descendants of European colonists? Almost every American have European heritage. In my opinion this doesn't make much sense for Americans.

What exactly means to be culturally white in US?

You can be racist and still hate fascism and Nazis.

Everyone should hate fascism and Nazis.

Just like how the "antifascists" who stormed the beaches of Normandy would support the "antifascists" of today! "my grandpa was antifa!!"

[dead]

It's grossly dishonest to conflate a complexion with an ethnicity. 'White' is a complexion, not a culture.

For most of the past five centuries, the people you're lumping into this thing called 'white' would've considered it fighting words to do so.

You wish to lead with "dumb shit" in framing why people have a problem with Elon Musk? Why not lead with the Nazi salute at the presidential podium? That would more quickly get to the point.

Sorry, hard disagree. Bad faith entirely precludes debate because debate is about updating and improving a position through exchanges of views, and that starts with the ability and willingness to budge from said position in the first place.

Which incidentally means that there is by definition no debating tenants of a position that can't survive one minute of good faith review. They're not there to debate. They're there to drown out and silence a truth about material reality that they're upset about.

It's a useful comment because it reflects a lot of our experiences, including mine. It's more than disgust, it's also dismay, sadness, and (hopefully) a kind of grim determination to roll up your sleeves and address the problem. When systems were working well for 80 years then a group of people who have taken over those systems and made them break. It's not something you want to deal with. It was a solved problem, and it feels like a waste of time. Like a broken sewer system at your corporate hq.

What you're talking about is part of the "rolling up your sleeves" step. What motivated those people to break things for no apparent gain to themselves or the world? Usually it boils down to unmet emotional needs plus a charismatic, ambitious leader who amplifies and harnesses those emotions for personal power and profit. This is one possible, if unlikely, insight that might prevent some damage.

However 99% of the time people have to learn for themselves. This means letting them break these delicate systems and suffering the consequences. Then society learns their lesson for 2 or 3 generations, and forgets it again by the 4th generation. In some cases (Germany) they may have learned it for 5 or 6 generations, but they'll forget too.

There is no debate. He’s a Nazi and Nazis are bad. There’s nothing to debate.

GP is saying neo-Nazis are "not just politics, but also something worse". You're not really disagreeing with them, maybe just missing their point about some ideologies being worthy of planned exclusion from a civilized society. Aka the paradox of tolerance. That's what makes some political stances "not just politics".

In the case of X, the business owner is aggressively pushing his political views on users by heavy-handed methods like prioritizing his own posts in algorithmic feeds and overriding the context of his AI bot to parrot his pet ideas.

If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”

In the past, most business owners would perhaps quietly donate to a party or candidates, but probably wouldn't hang their ideology out in front of people all day, every day. Think about someone like Warren Buffett. He has political views, but they are not something he's out there loudly airing on a huge platform.

And like I pointed out, these are not just any old "political views". It's extremist stuff that in the past would have gotten you ostracized. I'm old enough to remember Trent Lott losing his Senate leadership position, for instance.

Also, because of "network effects", simply providing content to Twitter makes the site more valuable.

It didn't used to be nearly as common for owners of midsize to large businesses to be loudly outspoken politically, especially those holding more extreme views. It used to be common sense to keep that sort of thing to oneself, if only to avert PR disaster. Not knowing when to shut up was more of a hallmark of the stereotypical two-bit owner of a crappy local business that perpetually struggled to grow.

This helped keep a neutral or at worst ambivalent image of these owners in the minds of the larger public and thus for the most part didn't factor into purchase decisions.

It's now easier than ever to see the true character of a business owner and so it's only natural that customers have begun to factor in this information in purchase/usage decisions.

I grew up the child of a small business owner in a small town, born in the late 70s. I was taught that a business owner would do well to keep their political views to themselves to prevent alienating their Customers.

It seems like that's the ideology that has changed.

I expect people to be different.

I don’t expect them to provide a platform for people who make it a point to hate others and advocate for removal of their / my rights and so on.

Why should I contribute to the wealth of a man who wants people like me dead? Why should I tolerate others who happily contribute to my own oppression?

X/twitter is a media company. choosing which media products to purchase based on political values is how it has always worked.

That's because they don't stay in their lane as business owner, but use the proceeds of that business (and a bunch of others) to influence world politics in a way that no single individual should ever be able to.

Well, part of the product is Elon's posts and his editorial choices that go into the algorithm. Also your example of the newspaper is also odd, because newspapers were and are well known to be influenced by their publishers and people very often will trash them if they have a contrary ideological bent

Do you believe that boycotting is a new behavior?

It isn't strictly required and it hasn't changed; it's always been complicated and it's always been a balance. This isn't speculation or a hot take. Consumer boycotts are as old as the hills, so it's an observable fact that our relationship with firms and their politics has been complicated and negotiated for a very long time.

Regarding your later edit:

> PS. It's amazing to me, and worrying, the anger and vituperation this position is provoking. It was once almost consensus. To take the obvious parallel, buying a newspaper did not imply agreement with the reactionary press baron who owned it.

It really shouldn't surprise you that if you express something that's a bit of a hot take that you'll get a reaction to it. You shouldn't draw any more of an inference from it then "people are passionate about this and some of them disagree with me." Whether people do so amicably or not has at least as much to do with the problems with the Internet as a means of communication as the issue itself.

Regardless, this status quo you refer to was mostly imagined. How much pressure people exert to boycott some platform or another waxes and wanes, because the underlying disagreements wax and wane in relevance. That doesn't really make it a new thing, just a new phase in the same unfolding history.

That's why you refer to the era of yellow journalism - the past is not an undifferentiated mass where everyone held some set of values that have fallen from favor. To the people who were alive at the time, things were contentious and in flux and the future was uncertain.

We have a tendency to flatten the past and imagine it as a straightforward narrative where we necessarily arrived at where we are today because of the inevitable interaction of historical forces, and similarly to flatten the people who lived at the time as being caricatures who reliably held a certain set of values. But they disagreed with each other, viewed the future as up for grabs, and they changed their minds as history unfolded.

Im not sure where your sense of history is coming from. One of the US‘s founding events was a boycott of British goods for political reasons.

> To take the obvious parallel, buying a newspaper did not imply agreement

That ... does not hold at all. You wouldn't buy or subscribe to an openly Nazi paper unless you are a full blown white supremacist.

Probably around the same time as the Citizens United decision. Supporting a business with your money also means supporting the things they choose to spend that money on

First, as others have pointed out, it's always been like that up to a point. But that's not the problem with X.

I didn't leave X when Musk acquired Twitter, and I'm not scandalised by people's political positions, even when they're extreme. But a position and behaviour are two very different things (e.g. being a racist and making a Nazi salute on live television are very different things). I left when the atmosphere amplified by the site became... not for me. I won't go into a pub full of football hooligans not because I disagree with their club affiliation but because their conduct creates an atmosphere that's not for me.

As for newspapers (even ignoring those with political party affiliations, something that was common in newspapers' heyday), most of them preserved some kind of civil decorum, and those that didn't weren't read by those who wanted some decorum.

Also, there were always some people of influence that held extreme views. But such people behaving in an uncivilised manner in public was less common (and certainly less accepted).

Aptly, given Elon's ancestry, did the whole anti-apartheid movement simply pass you by?

Most people hold a set of political views, while also admitting a spectrum of competing views into their personal, financial, etc. lives. For the average person, doing business with a neo-Nazi (or someone who is "merely" neo-Nazi adjacent) exceeds that spectrum. This is eminently reasonable, and has not changed significantly in a long time.

There are plenty of business' products that I use where I'm unaware of if I share or don't share the owner's political views and I'm totally fine using them. Elon Musk has made it impossible to not be aware of his political views by constantly shoving it down our throats.

Buying a newspaper has always been a political act

Not really. People have boycotted products for political and ideological motivations for a very long time. The change recently is that people stopped caring as much. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts

No one would say they used "David Duke's Whites Only Car Wash" but "didn't support the owner's politics."

The Body Shop was fairly vocal about animal testing and Ben and Jerrys was famous for their political messages on their products and that was in the 80s. And Levi Strauss and their LGBTQ+ support.

If you were not aware of it, it is not because it wasn't happening. Historically, excepting media companies, left leaning companies have always been outspoken about this while right leaning ones believed in the idea of focusing on business and avoiding overt political messaging.

So companies like Exxon were not broadcasting their views but were still lobbying government directly to change the laws in a way that benefit them (see deregulation).

Personally I left Twitter less because Musk owns it now, and more because Musk's changes turned my previously tolerable feed into a deluge of far right drivel. Expecting me to keep using it is like expecting me to keep shopping at a grocery store that replaced its bread aisle with a swastika-festooned exhibit glorifying the conquests and exploits of Hitler and his Nazis---even if I am generally apolitical, I will have to start shopping somewhere that sells bread.

Notwithstanding the above, given how powerful network effects are in social media, I think boycotting platforms operated by people like Musk (I struggle to find the words to fully encompass how repulsive he has become) is arguably one of the more effective forms of protest available to people, and I encourage them to exercise it.

You might investigate the origin of the term 'boycott.' It turns out that ostracizing someone's business for political reasons has a long and cherished history. Colt and S&W were targets because their owners cooperated with Clinton's gun control efforts. And to your point, there are plenty of examples of that: https://www.unz.com/print/SocialJustice-1939may22-00001/

When the business owner is in control over the algorithm that determines what you see on the product he owns.

>But since when did using a business's product come to require sharing (or not sharing) political views with the business's owner?

Since 18th century at the very least; see: anti-slavery sugar boycott[1].

That's if you absolutely ignore the parent's point that political views are things like specifics of policy, not whether some people should be considered subhuman.

>Seems to me that this is what has changed.

It seems so because you don't know history, and didn't do a one-minute Google search for history of successful boycotts.

The article I'm linking is in the "bite-sized" category.

Enjoy.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3rj7ty/revision/7

This question is a deflection and I suspect is intentionally disingenuous since it literally ignores the main point of the parent's comment.

It's not like they are separate at all, the owner is very active on the site as both a user and a god-moderator.

The conflict seems as old as ever. Labor vs union-busting robber baron.

It is the way they express those views.

I mean, there are a lot of conservatives I respect including Mitt Romney, Robert Nisbett, George Will, and Thomas Sowell. Then there are the jerks like William F. Buckley and David Horowitz. [1]

Then there is Musk who's below even them -- but I am not particularly offended by Hobby Lobby or Chicken-Fil-A.

[1] if you want to know the criteria I use take a look at this book https://www.amazon.com/Watch-Right-Conservative-Intellectual...

Social pressure has literally always existed. Nothing has changed lol.

And I wouldn't call white nationalism a "political" view, like it's some ordinary kind of opinion. That's sanewashing something disgusting and disgraceful. That type needs to get shoved back under the rock they crawled out from.

Musk’s account is the most engaged and followed account on Twitter. So Twitter is de facto his global soapbox.

(And most of the other top-engaged accounts are MAGA accounts: https://www.natesilver.net/p/social-media-has-become-a-freak...)

TWFKAT (the website formerly known as Twitter) is not a product, it's Elon Musk's safe space. He bought it to be his sandbox and to use it to soothe his constantly battered and fragile ego. His own personal clubhouse where he sets the rules, and he's the ultimate authority. You can join if you want to be a part of his cult of personality, but don't fool yourself that you're dealing with a "product" and a "business".

[flagged]

After reading about Wayland for 10 (?) years and thinking it was some huge deal, I finally took the leap as I was redoing my window manager anyway and it was quite easy (at least on NixOS). Heck virt-viewer (one of my main apps) is still running under Xwayland because the performance seems better.

It would be ironic if Xorg launched a twitter competitor using a custom update protocol (an X extension) over the network and TCL

Those concerns have evolved away from their original mission. Not an unusual situation for organizations like this as a they shrink and lose relevance.

Where in my comment did I claim otherwise?

just not twitter censorship

He's saying that they have ideological concerns beyond the ideological concerns you would tend to associate with the EFF (digital privacy, open source, patent trolling, etc). I for one am sad to see that this is the case. There are fewer and fewer organizations protecting civil rights without being dragged into left/right tribalism.

But what is the cost of posting on X? Why do they even have a blue tick?

That's explicitly not the logic EFF is using; they come close to outright rejecting it.

What exactly has Elon done to limit your freedom? For me, Elon has increased my freedom because I can read about certain viewpoints that were previously censored on Twitter.

> freedom is intersectional

What is your working definition of freedom? I'm interested in replying but I'd like to engage with you on your terms.

No it is absolutely not. You don’t have a freedom to make anyone else agree with or believe in your views because that tramples over the other person’s freedom of thought.

"freedom is intersectional" is a fancy way of saying "I only support freedom for people I agree with." and the impressions line at the end is basically admitting it was never about principles, it was about clout. you didn't leave the platform because of ethics, you left because the algorithm stopped paying you for it.

Did the CEO of TikTok and Instagram also do a Nazi salute on stage?

> Young people, people of color, queer folks, activists, and organizers use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day.

Where you do you see this insinuation being made? I don't see anything like that.

It's sad that they have gone political whereas their goal should, in my optics, be almost technocratically in favour of their own stated goals of "protecting user privacy from government/corporate surveillance, defending free speech online, enforcing net neutrality, promoting encryption, and combating abusive intellectual property laws".

So just talk to the people who you think already agree with you?

You’re a little behind the times, mate.

Threads has more daily active users than X and is growing quickly vs. the latter’s cratering usage rates. Demographics trend younger, too.

Wow I never thought the org I’ve donated to all these years to fight for digital rights would find the need to use the phrase “queer folks”. What a toxic mess.

Please stick to your charter my friends.

This is the exact opposite of reaching out to a broader audience.

* _their_ tweets

Twitter never cared about users rights. Read Matt Taibbi's congresional testimony on Twitter's censorship machine.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Sometimes it's not just about quantity. Not all impressions are equal.

And like it or not - Twitter is still the preferred communication platform of quite a few influential people.

Plus, even if it did get less engagement, I imagine that BlueSky is full of the sorts of people who donate to EFF.

What does it say? EFF has not bothered to engage with basically anyone that replies to them on X the platform at least since Dec 1, 2025. Searching for EFF replies from older posts also shows that they basically never engage with X users, apart from using it as an advertising firehose.

If they spent any appreciable amount of time replying to people and not just themselves, their X impressions would be considerably larger. X themselves has been clear that engagement weights impressions/recommendations/algorithmic display, and EFF has done none of that.

It looks to me like a people at EFF problem, not an X problem.

Citing low engagement numbers as a reason for leaving while continuing to maintain an active Threads account is the opposite of honest.

That's not EFF's mission. They are not an organization that deals in helping vulnerable communities. They are an organization dedicated to improving electronic ownership and privacy.

At most, X only serves as a marketing/fundraising mechanism. Nothing more. And the EFF doesn't really need to do that as I'm certain their victories and fights will still be shared on X without them.

You clearly didn't read the article closely enough. The first header is "The Numbers Aren’t Working Out." If it was about the audience, they would have switched stopped earlier.

13 million impressions a year isn't enough to be worth copy-pasting a few posts from Facebook?

It's pretty damn simple actually. Their target audience by and large doesn't use twitter anymore, either.

Worth the time? Can you not just use some automation or tool to post your stuff to multiple platforms including X?

I find it really hard to believe that even with lower views on X than the past, that it's literally not worth the tiny about of effort to get their messages posted there.

But it's worth their time to stay on platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon? Something isn't adding up.

I was about to say, Twitter has long been one of the largest collections of terminally online people and that's only gotten worse as various groups have abandoned the platform and social media as a whole has seen a decline. Most people who have a life spend their time elsewhere on the web or don't participate in social media at all.

not anymore. People are acting like they're leaving everything and moving to bluesky or fedi when in reality they already exist there and many other places and are simply leaving the braindead one

The big issue with this approach is that it will destroy your sanity for things that are often a big bag of hype with nothing underneath. I often find HN to be better because things that get on the front page are vetted beyond 'someone on twitter hyped up a thing'

My goodness, the only branch of work that I can think of where knowing something a few hours earlier is probably day trading also.

Seriously, if you're working on anything worthwhile, you can wait for the weekly digest. Everything else just seems like hyperiding.

I had to reluctuntaly create an account on twitter after years because of the exact same reason. AI research discussion is more active there than anywhere else. I've tried to use nitter's rss feed to stave off of the platform but it was limiting.

Well, Twitter has a lot of separate spheres. It's pretty easy to curate just tpot (the part that concerns itself with the Bay area, venture capital, and so forth) by following the right people and then engaging with posts that are on-topic.

Even when it was Twitter drinking from the firehose didn't really make your life better. I don't need a two sentence breaking update from a Miyazaki baby to stay on top of this stuff, and quite frankly if they can't bother to make a blog post or press release it's probably just noise any way.

bsky is meant to hold the promise of control your algorithm, I don't see why that can't be the model going forward

Hmm, I'd argue what you call "compartmentalize their principles" is in fact, NOT having principles.

Correct me if I'm wrong: I'm asserting that having a principle is an inalienable belief that actually guides behavior, not selectively applies to behavior.

Though generally: yes, I agree: get off twitter, and I'd go a step further and say..minimize all social media involvement.

This is a poor take. "You can make this mismanaged steaming pile of bot-infested garbage better if you just filter everything!"

Would you call it free speech if the whole world was able to track your position anywhere in the world 24/7?

[flagged]

It is malicious, and you shouldn’t be downvoted for calling out someone who is so obviously arguing in bad faith.

I'm not on Twitter anymore so pls fill me in, did he ban people for saying "cis," or does it just warn you like it does for certain other words? Those don't get you banned afaik

Not really, their target audience is much more likely to hang out on Mastodon and Bluesky. So even if the impressions might be fewer the quality of them is almost certainly higher.

Here's my simple criteria.

I'm on Twitter/X, but none of the other social media sites they list (I mean, I'm on LinkedIn, but not in any sort of regular way). So their reach to me personally is diminished. Obviously I'll still go on their website if I want to keep up with their activities and I'll probably still hear relevant news about them though.

Does anyone seriously think EFF posting to X yesterday tarnished their brand? Be real.

Going against the network effect out of principal doesn't seem to be a winning strategy when the goal is to raise awareness about issues.

Not sure this is true anymore. X is now just pay to play. Organic engagement is completely dead there. It's all a virality game now.

Moral grandstanding is much better then vice grandstanding. Moral grandstandings are good, especially in a world that think being moral makes you a looser.

That being said, there is no disguise.

Just noting it. The other post was submitted earlier. The mod's can figure out how to combine/reconcile. Update: I think you are correct and this one won :)

The opposite is true, actually.

I would bet the opposite, Twitter was already a small competitor compared to Facebook and never reached its popularity, switching the audience to the far right likely cut down even more of what was left.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Reddit has been decreasing in quality for years, and especially since 2023. But it's compartmentalized by subreddit, and some subreddits have degraded more slowly than the rest of the site. You can still follow these subreddits through RSS, and old.reddit can still be navigated without JavaScript.

AFAIK Reddit is the last mainstream social media site with such niceities, even mbasic.facebook.com is gone as of 2024.

I don’t follow any of the main subs, just niche interest ones that don’t have an alternative. I might try building up a community on Lemming, but there’s just very little activity there right now.

Reddit is a lot of different things and places. Some subreddit are basically PhpBB forums of old. Though now that discord seemingly took over, most of the closed communities i was part of went there, i don't think i connect more than once a month on average.

Oh thanks, I didn't know you could do that. I do like the front page recommendations sometimes but maybe I'll try this

>between zero and 20 retweets... sounds like a failed platform.

Or they're tweeting something their followers don't care enough about to engage with, so the platform stops funneling their post to other followers.

Again, youtubers complain about this same kind of thing regularly. It's almost always just a 'you' problem, your content is simply not engaging.

A sandbox, sure, but a toxic one?

The nazis are out in full force.

Drive-by reddit comments tend not to do well here. This website rewards thoughtful discussion.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word "more". A single example does not prove "more".

That's where you draw the line? Does a social media allow you to dox the owner's location? A true test of free speech!

There are many accounts that show the flight paths but on a 24h delay. I see that as reasonable. It allows you to do view the data but there is no security risk.

Meanwhile people were banned off twitter for saying "men are not women".

Because those aren't occupied by horrible people. Freedom is intersectional, you can't fight for freedom while indirectly supporting the oppression of others. Sometimes, the benefits of more eyeballs are worth it but there aren't enough people left on twitter for it to be worth supporting

I don't know about the others, but mastodon: yes to all three, since before twitter was bought by Musk. Twitter interoperability use to be good though, but i don't know what they did after locking the public API. Do you have a more limited access to twitter api now? or is it still locked?

Why are you guys so unprepared against someone pointing out that disciplinary actions and criteria for those on Twitter had always been broken? It's obvious that canned_responses.xlsx you were given didn't include responses for that, and that's weird.

Twitter account bans had always been so broken that account bans, account ban evasions, tweet deboosting avoidance, etc. has all, long, been natural parts of life on it, since at least 2010s. I might as well argue that it would not have gone so far "down", psychologically, to the point that its old management would have sold the entire thing to Musk and for people to genuinely believe in positive outcome under him.

The very least you guys could have done it is to recognize the fact that inconsistent, unclear, unenforced policies of old Twitter existed && are not consistent with yours. You guys don't even do that. How even.

My impression is that as EFF's executive leadership has evolved over time, the driving motivations and attitudes of that leadership has changed EFFs style of execution.

It has probably helped increase their raw numbers, but it has also induced "mission drift".

How could you possibly lose reputation from that?

[dead]

>What exactly are “neutral rights”?

Rights that apply to people even if you disagree with them, like free speech. Something both the left and the right seem to hate.

GP is complaining about a shift from one set of positions to a different set.

[flagged]

Please elaborate. What political views did I express or advocate, other than free speech?