Official Twitter Thread (2 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

How would you like to see Twitter handle entities like the EU, China, India, etc. that are more censorship-minded than the US?

It's not relevant how I would like to see it being handled.

Musk can kick anyone out of his sandbox. He purchased that right, and I fully support his right to do that. Frankly, this is kind of what I expected. He's a guy who is addicted to Twitter, and likes, and trolling, he just so happens to be a billionaire who bought a high profile message board.

I don't think Twitter is nearly as important as some people do. I never bought this digital town square nonsense. It's a place for creators to promote themselves, and to get you to go to their site, where they can make money, like the guys who own this site. It's helpful for breaking news as it happens, but most of those people breaking news want you to go to their site, right? Then you have scammers and trolls, but they were always there. There's no important back and forth discussion going on there. If Twitter disappears tomorrow, Threads would probably rise up, and the same people would be saying toxic crap in the comments of every post. That's not a Musk problem.

I have an issue with Musk the demagogue, where he lies, makes outrageous claims, treats workers like garbage, and people lap up everything he says with no questions asked. I think it's really dangerous, and pointing out that Mr. Free Speech is censoring people is worth bringing it up.

I think if you're going to criticize the owner of the site for bowing to other governments, you should explain what you would like to see him do differently.

For instance, I am rather in favor of seeing US companies -- not just Twitter -- tell folks like the EU and CCP to pound sand, but that's easy for me to say because I don't own stock in Twitter, and you seem to have very firm views about Musk's fiduciary responsibilities. Just curious about how you would square the particular circle.

 

[massraider]

I think if you're going to criticize the owner of the site for bowing to other governments, you should explain what you would like to see him do differently.

Nah

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Wasn't there two articles - one said he's purging left wing critics as well?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Guys, if somebody says that Twitter is 30% more censorious now than they used to be, that should set off all of your BS detectors. It's not even that that claim runs directly counter to everyone's first-hand experience. It's also that I don't even know what it means to say that "censorship has gone up 30%." How would you even generate such a statistic? That should sound like made-up pseudoscience, and if you check the source, that's exactly what it is.

 

[massraider]

You really don't see the difference?

He quoted a hard number, a statistic, and mentioned a specific story. I wanted to read it.

C'mon man

I asked for a link, because you said the real story was that he was more inclusive.

So the real story, in your opinion, is your opinion.

Come on.

 

[Battersbox]

I'm VERY MUCH interested in reasons If you think the platform is becoming more restrictive

I did not make any claims either way.

Well, you claimed I'm not interested in hearing reasons. I'm telling you I am.

If you don't have an opinion, why make inferences about me?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think if you're going to criticize the owner of the site for bowing to other governments, you should explain what you would like to see him do differently.

Nah

Huh. It's almost like you're not interested in having a discussion.

 

[massraider]

Wasn't there two articles - one said he's purging left wing critics as well?

Regarding the latest:

X Bans and Then Unbans Journalists and Podcasters in Twitter's Latest Free Speech Massacre [Updated]

Shortly after this article was published, Musk responded to a question about the issue from far-right influencer Jackson Hinkle. Musk promised to investigate, and the accounts went back up soon after. Musk later blamed the “mistake” on X’s spam algorithms. The Hamas account is still suspended...

www.yahoo.com

It's very worth noting far-right influenevers are calling him out as well, that's who he responded to.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm VERY MUCH interested in reasons If you think the platform is becoming more restrictive

I did not make any claims either way.

Well, you claimed I'm not interested in hearing reasons. I'm telling you I am.

If you don't have an opinion, why make inferences about me?

Maybe I just thought it was interesting how you were acting and I made an observation.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Guys, if somebody says that Twitter is 30% more censorious now than they used to be, that should set off all of your BS detectors. It's not even that that claim runs directly counter to everyone's first-hand experience. It's also that I don't even know what it means to say that "censorship has gone up 30%." How would you even generate such a statistic? That should sound like made-up pseudoscience, and if you check the source, that's exactly what it is.

There was more that one article but your concentrating on the most controversial one for some reason.

 

[massraider]

Huh. It's almost like you're not interested in having a discussion.

I have no interest in discussing what I would do if I ran Twitter. I don't think it's very interesting for everyone to find out that I would ban everyone except me and Halle Berry.

 

[Battersbox]

Wasn't there two articles - one said he's purging left wing critics as well?

There were two articles talking about the same study from the conservative media watchdog. One of the links incorrectly suggested the conservative group was whining about Musk and his team clamping down on left-leaning voices (which would be dumb)

Ultimately though, it's probably moot because the 'study' from the conservative watchdog group was addressing things which happened for the first few months after Musk took over. As we all know, personnel at X has changed dramatically since then.

 

[urbanhack]

Much more relevant that Twitter complies with censorship requests from countries known to censor dissent, like Turkey and India.

But I heartily disagree with implications it's more censorious now than pre-Musk

I think "any censorious whatsoever" is the story, from the free speech absolutionist, right?

Sure. He's fallen short at times, no argument from me. But the platform is still far more inclusive than before he took over, and that is the primary story to me. You can quibble with him saying he wants to be a free speech absolutist, that's fine. To me that's far less important than the net effect of the change in regimes.

Misrepresenting articles to suggest he's been more censorious than the previous regime are what I was taking issue with, because it doesn't represent reality.

Wow.

 

[Battersbox]

You really don't see the difference?

He quoted a hard number, a statistic, and mentioned a specific story. I wanted to read it.

C'mon man

I asked for a link, because you said the real story was that he was more inclusive.

So the real story, in your opinion, is your opinion.

Come on.

I don't have a link about him being more inclusive, but I have an ongoing mosaic theory from experiences over the past year plus. If you disagree, that's fine. I can give countless examples of him being more inclusive about the platform, but you already know what they are.

I don't know how many times I can ask for reasons people might feel it's less inclusive now. I truly am interested in hearing them.

The real story is how inclusive the platform is, at least to me.

 

[Battersbox]

I'm VERY MUCH interested in reasons If you think the platform is becoming more restrictive

I did not make any claims either way.

Well, you claimed I'm not interested in hearing reasons. I'm telling you I am.

If you don't have an opinion, why make inferences about me?

Maybe I just thought it was interesting how you were acting and I made an observation.

But you misrepresented how I was acting. You said I ignored the articles, which I did not and was plain to see.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm VERY MUCH interested in reasons If you think the platform is becoming more restrictive

I did not make any claims either way.

Well, you claimed I'm not interested in hearing reasons. I'm telling you I am.

If you don't have an opinion, why make inferences about me?

Maybe I just thought it was interesting how you were acting and I made an observation.

But you misrepresented how I was acting. You said I ignored the articles, which I did not and was plain to see.

I guess it was just my opinion.

 

[Battersbox]

Wasn't there two articles - one said he's purging left wing critics as well?

Regarding the latest:

X Bans and Then Unbans Journalists and Podcasters in Twitter's Latest Free Speech Massacre [Updated]

Shortly after this article was published, Musk responded to a question about the issue from far-right influencer Jackson Hinkle. Musk promised to investigate, and the accounts went back up soon after. Musk later blamed the “mistake” on X’s spam algorithms. The Hamas account is still suspended...

www.yahoo.com

It's very worth noting far-right influenevers are calling him out as well, that's who he responded to.

Agree, worth watching. He unbanned all of them very quickly. But, it also shouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

[massraider]

Agree, worth watching. He unbanned all of them very quickly. But, it also shouldn't have happened in the first place.

I really don't think we disagree to be honest. I am not standing on the idea that he's more or less inclusive, this isn't really interesting (or provable, IMO) to me. And if Jack and previous Twitter was unfairly booting conservative voices, eff them.

I know there's a political undercurrent, but IMO, that's less and less every day. You can find PLENTY of conservative voices not happy with Musk on Twitter.

I think he's a junkie wackadoo that still influences waaay too many people's opinions. That is much more concerning to me than some **** posters on Twitter

 

[Battersbox]

Agree, worth watching. He unbanned all of them very quickly. But, it also shouldn't have happened in the first place.

I really don't think we disagree to be honest. I am not standing on the idea that he's more or less inclusive, this isn't really interesting (or provable, IMO) to me. And if Jack and previous Twitter was unfairly booting conservative voices, eff them.

I know there's a political undercurrent, but IMO, that's less and less every day. You can find PLENTY of conservative voices not happy with Musk on Twitter.

I think he's a junkie wackadoo that still influences waaay too many people's opinions. That is much more concerning to me than some **** posters on Twitter

I'm neither a fan nor a hater of Musk the man.

And to me the most interesting thing about any discussion of Twitter is how much speech is allowed and how inclusive it is for various voices.

I agree there are far too many impressionable dipsh*ts on the platform, but that's part of it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Guys, if somebody says that Twitter is 30% more censorious now than they used to be, that should set off all of your BS detectors. It's not even that that claim runs directly counter to everyone's first-hand experience. It's also that I don't even know what it means to say that "censorship has gone up 30%." How would you even generate such a statistic? That should sound like made-up pseudoscience, and if you check the source, that's exactly what it is.

There was more that one article but your concentrating on the most controversial one for some reason.

Which article made the strongest case for Twitter being 30% more censorious? You're right that I don't want to cherry-pick the weakest source. Give me what you see as the strongest evidence for that proposition so I can look at that one instead.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Guys, if somebody says that Twitter is 30% more censorious now than they used to be, that should set off all of your BS detectors. It's not even that that claim runs directly counter to everyone's first-hand experience. It's also that I don't even know what it means to say that "censorship has gone up 30%." How would you even generate such a statistic? That should sound like made-up pseudoscience, and if you check the source, that's exactly what it is.

There was more that one article but your concentrating on the most controversial one for some reason.

Which article made the strongest case for Twitter being 30% more censorious? You're right that I don't want to cherry-pick the weakest source. Give me what you see as the strongest evidence for that proposition so I can look at that one instead.

I never made that argument. I think you ran jumped in to protect Twitter when I was making a statement to one particular poster (that wasn't you).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Guys, if somebody says that Twitter is 30% more censorious now than they used to be, that should set off all of your BS detectors. It's not even that that claim runs directly counter to everyone's first-hand experience. It's also that I don't even know what it means to say that "censorship has gone up 30%." How would you even generate such a statistic? That should sound like made-up pseudoscience, and if you check the source, that's exactly what it is.

There was more that one article but your concentrating on the most controversial one for some reason.

Which article made the strongest case for Twitter being 30% more censorious? You're right that I don't want to cherry-pick the weakest source. Give me what you see as the strongest evidence for that proposition so I can look at that one instead.

I never made that argument. I think you ran jumped in to protect Twitter when I was making a statement to one particular poster (that wasn't you).

It was @FreeBaGeL who made the "30% more censorship" argument. That claim jumped out at me too because it seems obviously non-believable, and it turned out not to be supported by anything. If you think I should give it a second look, cool. Just point me in the direction of something and I'll at least give it a quick read.

I've been critical of Twitter when it comes to stuff like their rebranding and the way they stripped headlines from news links. But yeah you're right that I will defend them when it comes to their willingness to allow more viewpoint diversity. It seems self-evident to me that the site is better on that dimension now, and I'd be interested in seeing why anybody would disagree. Most critics of Twitter seem to be taking the opposite approach, arguing that they aren't moderating their users aggressively enough.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If you think I should give it a second look, cool. Just point me in the direction of something and I'll at least give it a quick read.

I'm not interested in laying out what exactly happened here - but basically some one asked for links and ignored they were supplied - and never addressed what was in them (until you did) - I just found that funny. I wouldn't be able to tell you if Twitter is more or less inclusive now because before Musk, I only used my lists and post Musk, I only use my lists - and its more superficial stuff like stock news, NFL news, local music scene and the Yankees. I don't get my news from Twitter - too exhausting.

 

[Battersbox]

If you think I should give it a second look, cool. Just point me in the direction of something and I'll at least give it a quick read.

I'm not interested in laying out what exactly happened here - but basically some one asked for links and ignored they were supplied - and never addressed what was in them (until you did) - I just found that funny. I wouldn't be able to tell you if Twitter is more or less inclusive now because before Musk, I only used my lists and post Musk, I only use my lists - and its more superficial stuff like stock news, NFL news, local music scene and the Yankees. I don't get my news from Twitter - too exhausting.

You're doing it again. The links were addressed, thoroughly, by me. I addressed them. You are lying.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If you think I should give it a second look, cool. Just point me in the direction of something and I'll at least give it a quick read.

I'm not interested in laying out what exactly happened here - but basically some one asked for links and ignored they were supplied - and never addressed what was in them (until you did) - I just found that funny. I wouldn't be able to tell you if Twitter is more or less inclusive now because before Musk, I only used my lists and post Musk, I only use my lists - and its more superficial stuff like stock news, NFL news, local music scene and the Yankees. I don't get my news from Twitter - too exhausting.

You're doing it again. The links were addressed, thoroughly, by me. I addressed them. You are lying.

I don’t care enough to really go back and forth but I’ll say sorry if I misrepresented your position but I believe I’m right about everything I said but maybe I took something the wrong way.

 

[The Commish]

How exactly are you guys determining whether or not twitter is "more" or "less" censored? From my understanding there is no way to tell if the people are the people on that platform anymore. Feels like, at best, you're going to have to rely on anecdotes and personal perceptions/guesses. That always goes over well in discussions like this.

 

[Judge Smails]

I’m suspended. Have no idea why. Went through the appeal process - no response. Never a big user anyway but F Twitter/X/Musk

 

[AAABatteries]

I’m suspended. Have no idea why. Went through the appeal process - no response. Never a big user anyway but F Twitter/X/Musk

There's a lot of, uh, well, badness in the world today. You and I see it in court every day. I've sentenced men younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't wanna do it, but felt I owed it to them. The most important decision you can make right now is what do you stand for, Smails? Goodness... or badness?

-Elon

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How exactly are you guys determining whether or not twitter is "more" or "less" censored? From my understanding there is no way to tell if the people are the people on that platform anymore. Feels like, at best, you're going to have to rely on anecdotes and personal perceptions/guesses. That always goes over well in discussions like this.

No clue, which is why I figured the "30%" thing was junk.

First of all, it's not at all obvious was "documented censorship is up 30%" even means. Does it mean 30% more suspensions got handed out? How would a third party even know that? But let's just go with that interpretation for the sake of argument. So what? Why am I supposed to be concerned if more people are getting suspended? Shouldn't I need to know why those suspensions are being doled out?

For example, even "free speech" people like me support moderation policies that would, say, suspend somebody for hurling slurs at members of a particular racial group, or for posting death threats, or for posting hardcore pornography. If Twitter moderators cracked down on that behavior, that would be fine with me. No problems with that at all.

On the other hand, the previous regime at Twitter colluded with the government to suppress a news story about the origins of covid-19 that ended up being (almost certainly) true. Even one such instance of censorship is extremely bad, many orders of magnitude worse than a few itchy-trigger-finger bans over misgendering somebody. I would take that sort of censorship extremely seriously.

This is one of this topics where people need to just say what they mean, and quit dancing around the point. What kind of moderation decisions are you objecting to specifically?

 

[Joe Bryant]

On the "how would you run it?" question, which I think is a good one, my answer is I don't have a clue. One of the reasons I'm empathetic to how the platforms are moderated is it seems impossible to me. This tiny little slice of message board interactions is a blip on the screen of what Twitter tries to do. And our thing feels like a huge challenge. No idea how I'd do it if we opened it up to the world and dropped the moderating miles down AND tried to make money on it.

That's why I'm quick to give them, and other platforms some grace on things.

 

[The Commish]

How exactly are you guys determining whether or not twitter is "more" or "less" censored? From my understanding there is no way to tell if the people are the people on that platform anymore. Feels like, at best, you're going to have to rely on anecdotes and personal perceptions/guesses. That always goes over well in discussions like this.

No clue, which is why I figured the "30%" thing was junk.

First of all, it's not at all obvious was "documented censorship is up 30%" even means. Does it mean 30% more suspensions got handed out? How would a third party even know that? But let's just go with that interpretation for the sake of argument. So what? Why am I supposed to be concerned if more people are getting suspended? Shouldn't I need to know why those suspensions are being doled out?

For example, even "free speech" people like me support moderation policies that would, say, suspend somebody for hurling slurs at members of a particular racial group, or for posting death threats, or for posting hardcore pornography. If Twitter moderators cracked down on that behavior, that would be fine with me. No problems with that at all.

On the other hand, the previous regime at Twitter colluded with the government to suppress a news story about the origins of covid-19 that ended up being (almost certainly) true. Even one such instance of censorship is extremely bad, many orders of magnitude worse than a few itchy-trigger-finger bans over misgendering somebody. I would take that sort of censorship extremely seriously.

This is one of this topics where people need to just say what they mean, and quit dancing around the point. What kind of moderation decisions are you objecting to specifically?

We're never going to get to the bottom of this. It's guessed by all so kinda fitting that you use it as an example. I couldn't begin to tell you if it's better or worse for a multitude of reasons, but the primary ones being 1. I don't use the platform, 2. Subjectivity is in the eye of the beholder, 3. You're never going to get objective data on this from the former owners or the current owners.

All that said, I think it's rather safe to assume that censorship is continuing on the platform rendering it a failure by the standard Musk claimed to want. I DO think the people being censored has likely changed....quantity too.

 

[Mitchie]

On the "how would you run it?" question, which I think is a good one, my answer is I don't have a clue. One of the reasons I'm empathetic to how the platforms are moderated is it seems impossible to me. This tiny little slice of message board interactions is a blip on the screen of what Twitter tries to do. And our thing feels like a huge challenge. No idea how I'd do it if we opened it up to the world and dropped the moderating miles down AND tried to make money on it.

That's why I'm quick to give them, and other platforms some grace on things.

well it's a $40 billion company they should have a lot of dedicated resources for this. is it easy? no. is it even clear that they're making much of an effort? not really. does the owner himself amplify what many could consider highly inappropriate/hateful messages? I would say yes

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm not sure if anyone is seeing this, but my feeds are all very inconsistent. I stopped checking the "for you" feed because those were all suggestions and things I didn't necessarily subscribe to. I recently noticed my "following" feed was pretty stale and missing content from people I know post a lot. I've clicked on "for you" the past few weeks and I'm seeing posts from feeds that I follow. Their posts are showing up there but not in my "following" feed. I don't get it.

Ok, I’m not the only one. It’s really frustrating.

I’ll scroll all the new tweets from people I follow on the Following tab then go over to the For You tab and mixed in with people I don’t follow are tweets from people I DO follow that WEREN’T in my Following tab.

I don’t even follow that many people, so it’s not like I’m just missing stuff or like the algorithm should be selecting and choosing based on popularity or anything. I used to see everything tweeted by everyone I follow on a timeline of when it was tweeted. Now that isn’t happening.

 

[shuke]

I’m suspended. Have no idea why. Went through the appeal process - no response. Never a big user anyway but F Twitter/X/Musk

Tell it to the Earth.

 

[the moops]

On the "how would you run it?" question, which I think is a good one, my answer is I don't have a clue. One of the reasons I'm empathetic to how the platforms are moderated is it seems impossible to me. This tiny little slice of message board interactions is a blip on the screen of what Twitter tries to do. And our thing feels like a huge challenge. No idea how I'd do it if we opened it up to the world and dropped the moderating miles down AND tried to make money on it.

That's why I'm quick to give them, and other platforms some grace on things.

well it's a $40 billion company they should have a lot of dedicated resources for this. is it easy? no. is it even clear that they're making much of an effort? not really. does the owner himself amplify what many could consider highly inappropriate/hateful messages? I would say yes

15 billion I think

 

[fatness]

Update: After logging in to my account which I don't want, on my landing page there were 2 items with videos of (human) shootings, 2 conspiracy items pushing violence, and an item directing me to a long thread advertised with a child abuse video. I've gotten none of this bile before. I guess as long as a business owner keeps the advertising bucks coming in, or decides to just keep running it and covering the losses with other money, the owner can keep pushing this kind of vomit material.

Sorry to hear that. Like I've stated (probably too much), I've pretty much stopped going and have gone from a reluctant Twitter user to somebody who foregoes it. I know I'm missing stuff, but it's just not worth it to me.

Thanks. I'm sorry a business owner chooses to push this crap on people. Imagine if Amazon did that.

I can't imagine that this is his intent. Rather, I suspect that his intent is to remove some (or much) of the content moderation algorithms and/or subjective policies to allow for broader speech and this is the unintended result.

I'm kind of in agreement that it wasn't his intent, but I wouldn't characterize this as an unintended result. I'd call it acceptable (to him) collateral damage. When message boards are unmoderated and get enough traffic, this often happens --- violent talk, abuse talk, porn and child porn talk, racist or antisemitic or anti-ethnic or anti-religion talk. It's the reason so many smaller media outlets have stopped their comments section. When the moderating staff at Twitter was cut by 70 or 80% everyone who wanted to be realistic knew this kind of bile would increase on Twitter. And it has. The desire to be the guy in charge of what could be said, and who could say it, is why Musk bought Twitter in my opinion. Because of his wealth he can sustain Twitter as long as he wants to by just paying for it, so to expect any substantial change isn't realistic.

Musk bought Twitter to tilt it to the right, in my opinion. People are getting suspended or banned but they're just different people than were getting suspended or banned before. The reduction in moderation is a cost-cutting move, and knowing that that will allow more vile content was just acceptable collateral damage, in my opinion.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The desire to be the guy in charge of what could be said, and who could say it, is why Musk bought Twitter in my opinion.

This is mainly projection. If Musk was running Twitter the way Twitter was run before Musk, people like the four folks that we're talking about would be getting banned all the time, for made-up reasons or for no reasons at all. That's mostly not happening. I have no absolutely problem finding extreme left-wing views on Twitter. My "For You" tab is still filled with Hamas supporters, for example. The Overton window is extremely broad on that site, and that's great IMO.

The one thing I definitely like about "new" Twitter is that there isn't a librarian who is curating my feed for me. If I want to follow a few antisemitic Hamas supporters to understand why those people feel the way they do, I can do that and nobody is stopping me. If I get curious about the origins of the covid-19 pandemic and want to read up on it a little, there is no moderator with their thumb on the scale steering me toward the approved narrative. If I want to sit around and watch videos of dudes fighting one another all day, I can do that too. This sort of arrangement comes with the drawback that you have to actually manage your feed and tell the algorithm what you want and what you don't want, but that's a tradeoff I'm happy to make. Hopefully Threads or something will provide an alternative for people who want to outsource their curation, but I don't want other people telling me what I can and can't read. By and large, New Twitter delivers on that much better than Old Twitter did.

 

[Joe Bryant]

well it's a $40 billion company they should have a lot of dedicated resources for this. is it easy? no. is it even clear that they're making much of an effort? not really.

Thanks. We'll just disagree on the bolded. Given what little bit I know, it seems clear, at least to me, they're making way more than "much of an effort".

My point, and what I said was, I tend to give a platform a good bit of grace and not assume I know things I coudln't possibly know about their effort as it seems like an incredibly difficult task.

But zero worries as it's fine for us to disagree.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think one thing that interests me on any platform is determining where the "line" is for moderation.

I think most agree there needs to be some line. If not, you get 4chan.

So, while there's nearly universal agreement, there should be some line.

There is much less agreement on where the line should be.

In my opinion, that's the crux of the argument and issue. And it's super interesting.

 

[Joe Bryant]

On the line discussion, I chose "the line" for the Footballguys forums to be at Politcs, Yoga Pants, and not being uncool to other people. Plus more. But those three "lines" effectively eliminate about 98% of all internet traffic.

But I was ok with that. Those lines are what worked for what I wanted to create here for a forum. And the forums are a money loser for us. They're not a stand alone business of course.

We heavily restrict what's allowed here. And we have plenty who think we restrict way too much. And I regularly get messages that we don't restrict nearly enough.

It's a challenge. And what I think makes part of it difficult is it's not just about having enough people or resources. The decision making, and consistent enforcing, is a nuanced decision driven thing. Not as much a resource thing. At least in how I see it.

 

[bigbottom]

On the line discussion, I chose "the line" for the Footballguys forums to be at Politcs, Yoga Pants, and not being uncool to other people. Plus more. But those three "lines" effectively eliminate about 98% of all internet traffic.

But I was ok with that. Those lines are what worked for what I wanted to create here for a forum. And the forums are a money loser for us. They're not a stand alone business of course.

We heavily restrict what's allowed here. And we have plenty who think we restrict way too much. And I regularly get messages that we don't restrict nearly enough.

It's a challenge. And what I think makes part of it difficult is it's not just about having enough people or resources. The decision making, and consistent enforcing, is a nuanced decision driven thing. Not as much a resource thing. At least in how I see it.

I tend to lean toward user autonomy, so would generally agree with IvanK that people should be able to curate their feeds as they see fit. Most of the complaints about unwanted violent videos or porn seem to be about the algorithms generating content in the “For You” tab. But that tab can simply be ignored, no? And while the apparently less than effective algorithms appear to be undermining the usefulness and value of that feature, that doesn’t impact a user’s curated personal feed right?

Far more concerning, in my opinion, are the recent reports that posts from accounts that a user follows are not appearing in users’ following tab. That would seem to undermine the central purpose of Twitter/X.

 

[Dezbelief]

Inclusive/exclusive

X is certainly more exclusive of lurkers now.

 

[Dezbelief]

I’m suspended. Have no idea why. Went through the appeal process - no response. Never a big user anyway but F Twitter/X/Musk

Wow

 

[Sammy3469]

On the line discussion, I chose "the line" for the Footballguys forums to be at Politcs, Yoga Pants, and not being uncool to other people. Plus more. But those three "lines" effectively eliminate about 98% of all internet traffic.

But I was ok with that. Those lines are what worked for what I wanted to create here for a forum. And the forums are a money loser for us. They're not a stand alone business of course.

We heavily restrict what's allowed here. And we have plenty who think we restrict way too much. And I regularly get messages that we don't restrict nearly enough.

It's a challenge. And what I think makes part of it difficult is it's not just about having enough people or resources. The decision making, and consistent enforcing, is a nuanced decision driven thing. Not as much a resource thing. At least in how I see it.

I tend to lean toward user autonomy, so would generally agree with IvanK that people should be able to curate their feeds as they see fit. Most of the complaints about unwanted violent videos or porn seem to be about the algorithms generating content in the “For You” tab. But that tab can simply be ignored, no? And while the apparently less than effective algorithms appear to be undermining the usefulness and value of that feature, that doesn’t impact a user’s curated personal feed right?

Far more concerning, in my opinion, are the recent reports that posts from accounts that a user follows are not appearing in users’ following tab. That would seem to undermine the central purpose of Twitter/X.

The additional thing is that ads in my Following tab have gotten more pronounced (5 of my first 20 tweets just now were ads) and frankly worse. Out of those 5 they are a betmgm, a diet smoke, some device, something from X/CES, and a SimpleApp ad. These are actually a step up from last night when I had an Ivanka lookalike trying to sell me solar panels 5 times in an about 25 tweets. Granted X has to make money, but (this gets back to something eephus touched on) the user experience has gotten markedly worse even in the Following tab. Almost all the ads are at best too informercial bad and scammy and make going on each time more and more annoying. I doubt I’m alone in this and know that experience has lessened my interaction with X.

 

[massraider]

I doubt I’m alone in this and know that experience has lessened my interaction with X.

Someone mentioned earlier, no ads on Lists (I still cannot believe).

Creating lists, or finding ones you like, is kind of a MUST, far as I am concerned.

Sigmund has a nice group of lists, fantasy related, for example. I have a list of Raider writers, The Athletic writers, NFL News guys.

No ads.

 

[McBokonon]

I haven’t noticed the issue people are talking about in the Following tab.

One possible explanation: I do notice (when mobile Twitter auto-forces me to start out there) that For You is not chronological. So, it’s possible that people are seeing someone they follow in For You and think they aren’t seeing them in Following, but the reality is the tweet they are seeing in For You is from 8 hours ago or 4 hours ago and you weren’t in Twitter to see it live in Following and it’s not really missing - it’s just old.

 

[McBokonon]

I doubt I’m alone in this and know that experience has lessened my interaction with X.

Someone mentioned earlier, no ads on Lists (I still cannot believe).

Creating lists, or finding ones you like, is kind of a MUST, far as I am concerned.

Sigmund has a nice group of lists, fantasy related, for example. I have a list of Raider writers, The Athletic writers, NFL News guys.

No ads.

I notice this too as I use mostly lists. And it’s bonkers. We’re literally telling them what products to advertise to us by creating a list. My financial twitter list should have brokerage ads, stock pick ads, ads for Barron’s etc. but there’s nothing. But I’ll absolutely see ads to buy some piece of crap from Temu over and over on Following even though I’ve never indicated any interest in whatever it is at any time.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

I doubt I’m alone in this and know that experience has lessened my interaction with X.

Someone mentioned earlier, no ads on Lists (I still cannot believe).

Creating lists, or finding ones you like, is kind of a MUST, far as I am concerned.

Sigmund has a nice group of lists, fantasy related, for example. I have a list of Raider writers, The Athletic writers, NFL News guys.

No ads.

I notice this too as I use mostly lists. And it’s bonkers. We’re literally telling them what products to advertise to us by creating a list. My financial twitter list should have brokerage ads, stock pick ads, ads for Barron’s etc. but there’s nothing. But I’ll absolutely see ads to buy some piece of crap from Temu over and over on Following even though I’ve never indicated any interest in whatever it is at any time.

Maybe none of those places are advertising on Twitter anymore.

 

[rockaction]

Someone mentioned earlier, no ads on Lists (I still cannot believe).

What is Lists? Microsoft Lists? I'm interested.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Most of the complaints about unwanted violent videos or porn seem to be about the algorithms generating content in the “For You” tab. But that tab can simply be ignored, no?

Absolutely.