[miki123211]

Use "latest", not "for you."

"Latest" is still exclusively people you follow, in chronological order (and content explicitly marked as sponsored if you don't have premium.)

X is the only corporate social media platform that offers this. You don't like the algorithm? Don't use it, and use X just like everybody else for the first 10 years of its life.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> X is the only corporate social media platform that offers this.

Why would you emphasize that point when it's clearly wrong? Is it ignorance? Is it to push a particular narrative? I'm confused.

[shkkmo]

Your comment would be more productive if you provided a counter example or any argument to support your claim.

[SketchySeaBeast]

I didn't provide an example because there's already a ton of other responders with examples. The claim is clearly false, but it was presented as emphatically true and I was wondering why.

[t-writescode]

I have found my mental health substantially better from downvoting and moving on in those cases, especially if there’s other people already responding with what you would want to say.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Yeah, I should do that instead. I'm just so tired of people uncritically and emphatically spreading falsehoods, especially in cases like these, when it's not a function of philosophy or viewpoint, and can be found to be objectively wrong, despite initial insistence. But yeah, downvote, move on.

[shkkmo]

Downvote and move on, or provide the reasoning behind your claim. Simply saying "you are obviously wrong" without any substantiation adds nothing to the discussion and instead tends to derail it, prompting further low value comments or causing people to respond to a straw man of what they assume your reasoning is. You shouldn't assume that other commenters will know that your reasoning is expressed in comments by other people you haven't linked or referenced. Some of the other comments provided counter examples that aren't as obviously social media (YouTube) or corporate (BlueSky) and which I found less convicing than the clear analogue in Threads (which I have never used and just assumed worked like Meta's other products which don't allow this.)

After having looked further, I agree with your claim, but it wasn't "obviously true" to me. I only use a small subset of social media and thus the knowledge from which I operate is different from yours and different things are obvious to me.

[tanaros]

> X is the only corporate social media platform that offers this. You don't like the algorithm? Don't use it, and use X just like everybody else for the first 10 years of its life.

Speaking as a non-X user, doesn’t YouTube offer essentially the same thing with the “subscriptions” tab?

[sitharus]

Yep, it absolutely does. YouTube would be unusable without it for me

[shkkmo]

I don't know that I'd consider YouTube to be social media, though there are similarities.

[drdeca]

Tumblr also has this?

(Not counting the ads and specifically-paid-to-be-promoted posts, but those are clearly marked, and I’m pretty sure twitter has as many in-line ads)

[gammarator]

… Bluesky offers a clean, strictly chronological following feed as well as your choice of algorithmic feeds.

[louthy]

> X is the only corporate social media platform that offers this

Facebook has this: menu -> feeds -> friends

[threeseed]

> X is the only corporate social media platform that offers this

Threads and BlueSky both offer this.

And so there is no literally zero reason now why anyone should stay on X.

[romaniitedomum]

> And so there is no literally zero reason now why anyone should stay on X.

Unless the people you're interested in hearing from are mostly or exclusively there.

[sroussey]

I’ve found… that I’m not missing much.

Even from people I admire that are exclusively there.

The push to generate a constant stream of content means that their good stuff is long past anyways.