[nomilk]

Fun and useful are different things though. I use X for 'news', debate, and updates on anything global. YouTube for specific tech tutorials and 'junk' viewing (e.g. something light-hearted while eating). And insta/fb reels for filling in idle gaps (e.g. while waiting in a queue). I gave up legacy media about 3-4 years ago and although Twitter is trash, would take it over mainstream media any day of the week (same with BlueSky and Mastodon, but I simply haven't needed those since they're approximately equivalent to X).

[soco]

I guess people like me have zero interest in global news, debate and updates on anything global. Or rather, not zero interest, but zero time for it after filling the day with other (more important to me) things.

[pavlov]

Didn’t we use to laugh at boomers who got their news from their Facebook feed?

X is the same thing, but with the lies amped up 10x and fractured into discontextualized atoms of outrage to keep you scrolling.

[nomilk]

Yup. The variance of truthiness on X is probably the highest of all platforms. Meaning you get the most accurate news if you can filter/discern well enough, at the risk of being brainwashed if you can’t. Since alternatives also brainwash, X is more or less pareto optimal

[mrguyorama]

>The variance of truthiness on X is probably the highest of all platforms. Meaning you get the most accurate news if you can filter/discern well enough

Absolute nonsense. Believing X is a simple distribution or sample of reality is bonkers.

[pavlov]

There is a heavy Dunning-Kruger effect where people think they are very discerning and sophisticated in how they filter, but gradually descend into depths of misinformation without realizing.

Grandparents sharing nonsense on Facebook also think themselves highly informed — after all they’ve spent the past ten years in retirement “doing their own research”.