Official Twitter Thread (1 Viewer)

[titusbramble]

I mean the whole point of the For You tab is to present posts you are likely to interact with - be that positively or negatively. I don't use it myself, but it's there to drive content. That you are seeing primarily GOP/MAGA accounts is one of two things - the algorithm working as intended, or that it is trying to drive balanced content, but maybe more left leaning content creators actually left X when Musk took charge (or replace with any recent non-favourable major event for liberals, they all work the same) than those that threatened to and are back posting days later

 

[tommyGunZ]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

You didn't misunderstand. I've been a Twitter power user for years and even though my algorithm should reflect the fact that I often engage with liberal media sources, my "For You" feed is non stop Musk and right wing posts. Musk essentially is doing what he complained about x100.

 

[McBokonon]

I mean the whole point of the For You tab is to present posts you are likely to interact with - be that positively or negatively. I don't use it myself, but it's there to drive content. That you are seeing primarily GOP/MAGA accounts is one of two things - the algorithm working as intended, or that it is trying to drive balanced content, but maybe more left leaning content creators actually left X when Musk took charge (or replace with any recent non-favourable major event for liberals, they all work the same) than those that threatened to and are back posting days later

Well, there's a third very real possibility, which is that the owner has intentionally configured the site to push content he personally favors to users.

 

[Max Power]

Or possibly X (algorithm) sees a spike in community engagement with certain style of post platform wide so its throwing those type of posts out to more users to see who else bites.

 

[McBokonon]

Or possibly X (algorithm) sees a spike in community engagement with certain style of post platform wide so its throwing those type of posts out to more users to see who else bites.

This is also very possible. Could be a mix.

On another note, went over to Threads the other day for the first time in I don't know how long. I think Zuck just forgot about it. It's pretty much a giant "Local Women Want to Meet YOU" platform at this point.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My "For You" tab is mostly just a mirror image of my "Following" tab. Same general content, just mostly accounts that I don't follow, and the opposite political valence. My Following is probably like 65-35 RW-LW, and I'd guess my For You is the reverse of that. I also see a lot of big accounts that I don't follow in For You, but that makes sense to me.

It's also very obviously algorithm driven. If I click on a couple of posts about the Nevada vote count, for example, my For You tab will have kinds of stuff about the vote in Nevada.

 

[General Malaise]

My Twitter feed is comprised entirely of super models and scantily clad ladies inviting me for company and to purchase their line of fans, which come to think of it sounds oddly specific since I live in the mild Pacific Northwest climate.

 

[TLEF316]

I don't follow a single political based Twitter account. Not one.

My for you page has been nothing but political stuff at certain times during the campaign (most notably today and the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt)

Even muting certain words to try and stop it (Trump, biden, kamala, election,etc) plenty of stuff still gets through.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

There have been three studies already performed on this topic that support your perception. And you're absolutely correct. He can do what he wants. It's also true that his claim and his actions aren't really in line with each other.

 

[Don Quixote]

I mean the whole point of the For You tab is to present posts you are likely to interact with - be that positively or negatively. I don't use it myself, but it's there to drive content. That you are seeing primarily GOP/MAGA accounts is one of two things - the algorithm working as intended, or that it is trying to drive balanced content, but maybe more left leaning content creators actually left X when Musk took charge (or replace with any recent non-favourable major event for liberals, they all work the same) than those that threatened to and are back posting days later

Well, there's a third very real possibility, which is that the owner has intentionally configured the site to push content he personally favors to users.

There was confirmed reporting that Musk at least does that for his own tweets. He got annoyed that his tweet about the Super Bowl did not get as much engagement as Joe Biden’s a couple of years ago, and he made the engineers work around the clock to change the algorithm to promote his tweets.

I blocked Elon Musk’s account and muted any tweet containing the word “Musk” to avoid it taking over my feed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A beautiful part of Twitter is the ability to tailor and control what you consume. For sure, the "for you" algorithm feed will present topics you're most likely to interact with. They may or may not align with your political leanings. In many cases, I'd guess posts that don't agree with your positions will get more interaction.

By far, the better way to use Twitter in my opinion is to use the features to allow you to see what you want to see. For me, that's almost entirely Twitter Lists and it works amazingly well when used as designed.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A beautiful part of Twitter is the ability to tailor and control what you consume. For sure, the "for you" algorithm feed will present topics you're most likely to interact with. They may or may not align with your political leanings. In many cases, I'd guess posts that don't agree with your positions will get more interaction.

By far, the better way to use Twitter in my opinion is to use the features to allow you to see what you want to see. For me, that's almost entirely Twitter Lists and it works amazingly well when used as designed.

I should use Lists more. I have one just for Bills-related accounts, because I want that material segregated from my day-to-day stuff. Otherwise though, everything all just goes in the same pot. It seems like too much effort to organize everything into Lists.

 

[Capella]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

 

[FairWarning]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

You didn't misunderstand. I've been a Twitter power user for years and even though my algorithm should reflect the fact that I often engage with liberal media sources, my "For You" feed is non stop Musk and right wing posts. Musk essentially is doing what he complained about x100.

Funny as mine is just the opposite, usually left influencers at the top of my page.

 

[FairWarning]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.

No idea how accurate but first google return:

Note the first number is world wide.

Twitter Statistics 2024 (Editor’s Pick)​

• Twitter has 586 million monthly active users as of 2024.
• More than 245 million people worldwide use Twitter daily.
• 60.9% of Twitter users are men, while 39.1% are Women as of 2024.
• Most of Twitter’s audience (36.6%) belongs to the 25 to 34 age group.
• With 106.23 million users, the United States has the highest number of Twitter users.
• Twitter user in the United States spends an average of 34 minutes and 6 seconds daily.
• Twitter registered a revenue of $505 million in Q1 2024 and $3.4 billion in 2023.
• Twitter generated $1.75 billion in revenue in the United States, while the rest of the world accounted for $1.65 billion in revenue in 2023.

 

[Capella]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But still way smaller than Facebook as graph in my link above shows.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

Twitter is where the narrative gets set.

 

[Capella]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

Twitter is where the narrative gets set.

What makes you say that? Is there any proof of that? Anecdotally I’m the only person in my life I know that spends more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter. Everyone else has nothing, Instagram or tiktok (that being the big one).

 

[3C's]

The better way to use Twitter is to not use Twitter.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

Twitter is where the narrative gets set.

What makes you say that? Is there any proof of that? Anecdotally I’m the only person in my life I know that spends more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter. Everyone else has nothing, Instagram or tiktok (that being the big one).

Any evidence I present along these lines is going to be highly political and not worth getting into. You either see it or you don't.

Back in the beforetimes, The New Republic was known as the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One. It was incredibly influential among journalists, academics, and policymakers. I'm not sure that it ever had much more than 100K or so subscribers. It just punched way above its weight because of who was there. If we were having this same discussion in 1983, it would be about TNR and we'd be making the same arguments.

Have a good evening.

 

[McBokonon]

A beautiful part of Twitter is the ability to tailor and control what you consume. For sure, the "for you" algorithm feed will present topics you're most likely to interact with. They may or may not align with your political leanings. In many cases, I'd guess posts that don't agree with your positions will get more interaction.

By far, the better way to use Twitter in my opinion is to use the features to allow you to see what you want to see. For me, that's almost entirely Twitter Lists and it works amazingly well when used as designed.

I feel like the same cycle of conversation in this thread is happening again. Some of us talk about how toxic the For You tab is, IK tells us his experience is exactly the opposite, and you expound on the best ways to use it to make it beneficial. Sometimes we just want to share what we're seeing in the algorithm.

I have several Lists and use them all the time - Financial, a List for soccer/Newcastle United, and one for Gambling/Fantasy. I've shared the financial one I set up with people here at FBG and it's decidedly right-leaning when it's political at all, which might inform my For You a bit. I only see For You when I open Twitter on my phone and it forces its way over there. It doesn't affect me or make me mad or anything, but it is always objectively terrible.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

Twitter is where the narrative gets set.

What makes you say that? Is there any proof of that? Anecdotally I’m the only person in my life I know that spends more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter. Everyone else has nothing, Instagram or tiktok (that being the big one).

It may have changed since Musk took over, but most of all the stuff in 2020 and 2022 started on sites like telegram

 

[eoMMan]

I was reading an article today speculating that X might merge one day with another similar type platform that’s been trading wildly this past week.

 

[Capella]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

Twitter is where the narrative gets set.

What makes you say that? Is there any proof of that? Anecdotally I’m the only person in my life I know that spends more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter. Everyone else has nothing, Instagram or tiktok (that being the big one).

Any evidence I present along these lines is going to be highly political and not worth getting into. You either see it or you don't.

Back in the beforetimes, The New Republic was known as the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One. It was incredibly influential among journalists, academics, and policymakers. I'm not sure that it ever had much more than 100K or so subscribers. It just punched way above its weight because of who was there. If we were having this same discussion in 1983, it would be about TNR and we'd be making the same arguments.

Have a good evening.

Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing. Certainly influential politically, but I doubt it made an impact on who voters selected.

 

[djmich]

I think of the X algorithm similar to google search results. Google search results are highly biased towards left leaning headlines that are in some way algorithm driven…they get the clicks. Same for X for you page, except it feeds more right because it gets more clicks on that site (although I personally get some left as well).

I think Musks purchase of X was a huge factor in this election outcome in terms of allowing more free speech and hence more right wing views where to Ivan’s point the narrative gets set.

Funny thing is, Musk tried to back out of the purchase and now it can be argued he changed election history by being forced to buy it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Any evidence I present along these lines is going to be highly political and not worth getting into. You either see it or you don't.

Back in the beforetimes, The New Republic was known as the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One. It was incredibly influential among journalists, academics, and policymakers. I'm not sure that it ever had much more than 100K or so subscribers. It just punched way above its weight because of who was there. If we were having this same discussion in 1983, it would be about TNR and we'd be making the same arguments.

Have a good evening.

I agree with this.

To what @Capella is talking about, it feels (and it's purely a feel, I don't have factual objective data) that Twitter is important for gathering influential people and forming points. It's a central, accessible point where people can come together, hash out ideas, and form momentum. Whether that's Republican politics, Democrat politics, Fantasy Football undervalued wide receivers or whatever, it feels like it works in a similar way.

Another way to say it:

My sense is our average Footballguys customer is not on Twitter following football content. But the content we provide that Footballguys customer is very much influenced by the football content on Twitter.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I feel like the same cycle of conversation in this thread is happening again. Some of us talk about how toxic the For You tab is, IK tells us his experience is exactly the opposite, and you expound on the best ways to use it to make it beneficial. Sometimes we just want to share what we're seeing in the algorithm.

I have several Lists and use them all the time - Financial, a List for soccer/Newcastle United, and one for Gambling/Fantasy. I've shared the financial one I set up with people here at FBG and it's decidedly right-leaning when it's political at all, which might inform my For You a bit. I only see For You when I open Twitter on my phone and it forces its way over there. It doesn't affect me or make me mad or anything, but it is always objectively terrible.

Agreed. I think lots of people use Twitter in different ways. In my opinion, that flexibility it offers is one of its strengths.

 

[Peggy]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

Twitter is where the narrative gets set.

What makes you say that? Is there any proof of that? Anecdotally I’m the only person in my life I know that spends more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter. Everyone else has nothing, Instagram or tiktok (that being the big one).

Any evidence I present along these lines is going to be highly political and not worth getting into. You either see it or you don't.

Back in the beforetimes, The New Republic was known as the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One. It was incredibly influential among journalists, academics, and policymakers. I'm not sure that it ever had much more than 100K or so subscribers. It just punched way above its weight because of who was there. If we were having this same discussion in 1983, it would be about TNR and we'd be making the same arguments.

Have a good evening.

Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing. Certainly influential politically, but I doubt it made an impact on who voters selected.

Twitter most certainly played a role in the outcome of the past two elections.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

The "For You" section of Twitter should be avoided - I have similar experiences with mostly hardcore conservatives and other "nasty" stuff showing up when I did click on it.

This. It took me a while to figure out that this is the default view. Even in the "People you follow" tab there are several accounts that I don't see unless I go directly to their feed and a handful that I suspiciously unfollowed

 

[Navin Johnson]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

You didn't misunderstand. I've been a Twitter power user for years and even though my algorithm should reflect the fact that I often engage with liberal media sources, my "For You" feed is non stop Musk and right wing posts. Musk essentially is doing what he complained about x100.

Same. I am as a progressive as you can get and all I see on the "For You" tab is BS from the other side.

 

[rockaction]

My sense is our average Footballguys customer is not on Twitter following football content.

I love being something different than average. I re-upped my X/Twitter account that I had deactivated just so I could see some bright and smiling fantasy football faces. I honestly felt like I was falling behind without it. I have only followed a few and haven’t gotten around to curating it, but I had no idea that FF worked from Twitter down.

You might not believe this, Joe, but I always felt (and I’m both biased and nuts) that arguments we were having in the Shark Pool hit Twitter about two weeks later. Just food for thought. As much as people complain about the Shark Pool, when I take time off from it I’m behind the curve. I just am. The SP, a subscription to your company, and checking out various voices in the FF world are crucial to my competency (questionable though that is) as a fantasy football player.

So I gently disagree that Twitter starts the conversation in FF. I think the message boards do. Twitter/X is a giant message board for some topics, and I’m not going to argue with IK or you about it too strenuously (Twitter/X is probably part of both the top-down and bottom-up impulse, so I’m not really sure what to say about it), but I think it might be more of a bottom-up thing than you guys realize. I mean, there is no way the Republican Party is what it is today without a resounding vox populi influence. You think that the R establishment was going to dare lose Latino votes about immigration ca. 2015? No way. But then they heard from the people loud and clear with the nomination of Trump. It sent a shock wave through the party and it came only when the people had a representative that represented their voices accurately.

I hope that’s not too political a statement to make. I needed to go there to address the bottom-up/top-down topic. The phenomenon of Trump is a bottom-up phenomenon that toppled an establishment. The role of X/Twitter served as both meeting ground for intellectuals and the voice of the people, magnified by not falsifying their preferences to pollsters, etc.

 

[rockaction]

Funny thing is, Musk tried to back out of the purchase and now it can be argued he changed election history by being forced to buy it.

+1

Absolutely. To preen now like this was his intent all along is pretty disingenuous. I know we have people who really admire Musk on the board, but it’s awfully tough to reconcile his actions before and after the purchase with that of a true free speech warrior. I think he actually turns over requests for identity by the government at a greater rate than Jack Dorsey did. I have no source for that, but it’s been repeated numerous times in various settings, so if somebody wants to challenge me and Google that, please do and please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

 

[FairWarning]

The better way to use Twitter is to not use Twitter.

The better way for some is to just make your own groups (like 32 beat writers) and just use that. It’s a must for gameday info over any other site.

 

[FairWarning]

But still way smaller than Facebook as graph in my link above shows.

Smaller, but it’s the biggest outlet if you are on the right.

 

[Max Power]

I’m surprised anybody thinks Twitter had any impact on the election. I don’t know how many people use it daily but let’s say it’s 20M Americans that’s still only 1/6 of the people who voted and not all the users would be impacted by the for you tab or anything they see on there. I don’t think Twitter would even rank in the top-10 reasons the election broke the way it did.


Now if you want to talk about Musk’s funding of the campaign that’s totally different.

I think it had a major impact. A lot of stories that would get screened by FB now had a outlet.

I’m not saying it’s great and maybe it impacted some people but the election as a whole? Idk I just have a hard time believing that.

Twitter is where the narrative gets set.

What makes you say that? Is there any proof of that? Anecdotally I’m the only person in my life I know that spends more than 20 minutes a day on Twitter. Everyone else has nothing, Instagram or tiktok (that being the big one).

Any evidence I present along these lines is going to be highly political and not worth getting into. You either see it or you don't.

Back in the beforetimes, The New Republic was known as the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One. It was incredibly influential among journalists, academics, and policymakers. I'm not sure that it ever had much more than 100K or so subscribers. It just punched way above its weight because of who was there. If we were having this same discussion in 1983, it would be about TNR and we'd be making the same arguments.

Have a good evening.

Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing. Certainly influential politically, but I doubt it made an impact on who voters selected.

Twitter most certainly played a role in the outcome of the past two elections.

I think we see it in the younger generations moving more conservative. Social media, not only twitter, but all platforms are reaching a different demographic.

I don't think information or views swung this election as it was more a result of some groups just not coming out at all.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My sense is our average Footballguys customer is not on Twitter following football content. But the content we provide that Footballguys customer is very much influenced by the football content on Twitter.

Thanks. This is what I had in mind, and you put it better than I did.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

My sense is our average Footballguys customer is not on Twitter following football content

Twitter is an interesting place to be during nationally televised games because you get to see real-time reactions from the opposing fanbases, as well as reactions from other fanbases. So, it will be extremes on two sides and then somewhere in the middle.

 

[Max Power]

My sense is our average Footballguys customer is not on Twitter following football content

Twitter is an interesting place to be during nationally televised games because you get to see real-time reactions from the opposing fanbases, as well as reactions from other fanbases. So, it will be extremes on two sides and then somewhere in the middle.

Have you checked out a FBG Dallas vs Philly gameday thread? I came for the football... stayed for the comedy.

 

[Peggy]

Funny thing is, Musk tried to back out of the purchase and now it can be argued he changed election history by being forced to buy it.

+1

Absolutely. To preen now like this was his intent all along is pretty disingenuous. I know we have people who really admire Musk on the board, but it’s awfully tough to reconcile his actions before and after the purchase with that of a true free speech warrior. I think he actually turns over requests for identity by the government at a greater rate than Jack Dorsey did. I have no source for that, but it’s been repeated numerous times in various settings, so if somebody wants to challenge me and Google that, please do and please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

I don't see anyone saying it was a Dr. Evil master plan from the beginning, it's true that it just kind of evolved and fell into place. That does not change it's significance though.

 

[rockaction]

Funny thing is, Musk tried to back out of the purchase and now it can be argued he changed election history by being forced to buy it.

+1

Absolutely. To preen now like this was his intent all along is pretty disingenuous. I know we have people who really admire Musk on the board, but it’s awfully tough to reconcile his actions before and after the purchase with that of a true free speech warrior. I think he actually turns over requests for identity by the government at a greater rate than Jack Dorsey did. I have no source for that, but it’s been repeated numerous times in various settings, so if somebody wants to challenge me and Google that, please do and please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

I don't see anyone saying it was a Dr. Evil master plan from the beginning, it's true that it just kind of evolved and fell into place. That does not change it's significance though.

I would agree with you that his intentions don’t change Twitter/X’s significance, but I would argue that his mental state while purchasing and then running the platform is evidence of what the platform actually is. That’s what I’m trying to say, however muddled it may be coming across.

In other words, we’re arguing here about what Twitter/X is. I take a very moderate view; one in between what seem to be the Joe/Ivan and the massraider/TommyGunz poles. I think both sides have points. What I was getting at was that I do not see Musk as anything more than an opportunist who purchased a platform that was already an intellectual meet n’ greet and he leveraged it for his own use and ends regarding this particular election—and he has done that since he began running the platform. There are an awful lot of questions that long-time users of the platform have. I’m not one of them, so I tend to trust them more than not because they were there from the onset and they are some pretty big power users and names.

On a funny note, Musk followed me at one point (I do not know how often he does that with people, but I do not think it’s like Tom from MySpace) because of a comment I made regarding exactly this debate. It was fairly pro-Musk. He also unfollowed me fairly quickly after (probably) reading more comments of mine coming across his feed (not about the platform). I regret I ever commented on anything there and deactivated my account about a little over two months ago. I have since set up a new one that will refrain from typing, dammit. Rock! Refrain, please!

*kicks rocks*

Okay.

 

[HomerSimpson]

Disclaimer: This is not meant as a political point, but rather an algorithm and social media philosophy observation.

I have been a recent adopter of Twitter (within the past year), and I only follow 5 USC football related accounts (what a crap show this year has been). Given that I don’t follow any political accounts or engage with any political posts, it is notable to me that for the last several weeks through today, my “For You” tab has been majority political posts, with Republican or conservative posts occupying 90+% of those posts. Every time I have logged on during that time (including today), Musks pro-Trump posts and Trump or Trump campaign posts are at the very top of the feed.

So unless it’s my state of residence (TX) that is effecting the algorithm, it appears that Twitter is promoting those posts in the feed. Which doesn’t bother me in the least as I don’t read or engage posts other than those in my curated feed, and as far as I’m concerned, Musk owns Twitter and can promote whatever he wants on his own platform.

But I thought one of the primary reasons Musk took over Twitter was because he didn’t like that kind of manipulation from social media platforms. That said, I am a Twitter neophyte, so it’s entirely possible I misunderstood Musk’s stated position, or there are other explanations for the mix of my “For You” feed. I only mention this because I see people crediting Musk with getting Trump elected.

I purposely avoided following Political Twitter accounts. But since X became a thing. My FYP is all Politics. It's unavoidable.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Funny thing is, Musk tried to back out of the purchase and now it can be argued he changed election history by being forced to buy it.

+1

Absolutely. To preen now like this was his intent all along is pretty disingenuous. I know we have people who really admire Musk on the board, but it’s awfully tough to reconcile his actions before and after the purchase with that of a true free speech warrior. I think he actually turns over requests for identity by the government at a greater rate than Jack Dorsey did. I have no source for that, but it’s been repeated numerous times in various settings, so if somebody wants to challenge me and Google that, please do and please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

I don't see anyone saying it was a Dr. Evil master plan from the beginning, it's true that it just kind of evolved and fell into place. That does not change it's significance though.

I would agree with you that his intentions don’t change Twitter/X’s significance, but I would argue that his mental state while purchasing and then running the platform is evidence of what the platform actually is. That’s what I’m trying to say, however muddled it may be coming across.

In other words, we’re arguing here about what Twitter/X is. I take a very moderate view; one in between what seem to be the Joe/Ivan and the massraider/TommyGunz poles. I think both sides have points. What I was getting at was that I do not see Musk as anything more than an opportunist who purchased a platform that was already an intellectual meet n’ greet and he leveraged it for his own use and ends regarding this particular election—and he has done that since he began running the platform. There are an awful lot of questions that long-time users of the platform have. I’m not one of them, so I tend to trust them more than not because they were there from the onset and they are some pretty big power users and names.

On a funny note, Musk followed me at one point (I do not know how often he does that with people, but I do not think it’s like Tom from MySpace) because of a comment I made regarding exactly this debate. It was fairly pro-Musk. He also unfollowed me fairly quickly after (probably) reading more comments of mine coming across his feed (not about the platform). I regret I ever commented on anything there and deactivated my account about a little over two months ago. I have since set up a new one that will refrain from typing, dammit. Rock! Refrain, please!

*kicks rocks*

Okay.

I wonder if my experience on Twitter is affected much by the fact that I don't follow Musk or interact with him at all. I see some of his tweets because I follow some people who follow Musk (of course), but otherwise he's just another big account that I'm aware of but seldom see, like that cattturd guy.

 

[belljr]

Because of this thread I tried something. I only follow 4 accounts. All releated to my daughters college/softball/athletics

I have never made a post in my life and only use it for any information above.

I clicked on the for you tab and its nothing but political nonsense - I never viewed political stuff

Quick glance says its about 70-30 right boasting and rubbing it in and the left claiming the end is near.

What hot garbage

 

[thecatch]

It's unclear to me why anyone would ever click on the "For you" tab.

 

[-fish-]

For some reason I also see a lot of posts about kick streamers doing things that apparently upset each other. I have no idea who any of these people are and have never clicked on any of these posts.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think I may have said this before so maybe I repeat myself, but IMO, online communities are going to be prone to extremism.

30 years ago, if you thought dressing up as Daffy Duck and making love with someone dressed as Bugs Bunny would be the hottest thing ever, you’d be highly unlikely to ever find someone in your town that had a similar outlook. You’d realize that your opinion was in the extreme minority and it would quietly stay in your head. Most everyone else in your circle/the local area would trend towards the moderate as that is what you would be exposed to. One could argue whether this is good or bad.

Today though, you can easily go online and connect to lots and lots of people with the same extreme minority opinion you have. Those folks will not only tend to then cluster together, but it will then start to seem to them that their extreme minority opinion isn’t actually all that rare because they managed to connect with so many others through cyberspace. So then it starts to be put out there more and more and become more accessible as an idea at all. And maybe folks who wouldn’t have even had any idea such a thing existed suddenly start nibbling on the edges and dipping their feet in. So over time, extreme minority ideas can start to work their way into the mainstream.

This doesn’t always have to be a bad thing. It’s really the entire idea behind spreading democracy by exposing the oppressed to it. The hope is that by increasing exposure to good ideas that have been repressed in an area, the idea can become more mainstream and accepted or desired.

But we certainly see the downsides as well.

Just as Twitter has a reputation now of being dominated by “right” leaning views, it’s pretty clear that Reddit leans quite “left”. As groups cluster, views tend to become more and more extreme as the echo chamber reinforces.

 

[rockaction]

You know you don't have to use your real name on Twitter, right?

Even worse is that I did know that. I changed it pretty quickly. I became an anonymous commenter. Very few posts with my real name are preserved on Google or can be looked at.

 

[the moops]

It's unclear to me why anyone would ever click on the "For you" tab.

It used to show me varied topics and opinions from all sorts of people. I only follow a few dozen people and their content alone is not enough for me