[jeffhuys]

It's still running fine for me with actual interesting content. I don't get this take, feels like only people who don't use it at all (anymore) say it's been a bad transition or "X sucks now" but they're not using it.

It's still just Twitter, but you're not being banned anymore. So ACTUAL discussions can take place without having the thought police running around with a banhammer.

[happosai]

The Amazing actual discussions:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1876168991330439314

Yeah I'm not going to return to a website that doesn't ban people unable to have a civilized conversation.

[jeffhuys]

> I'm not going to return to a website that doesn't ban people unable to have a civilized conversation

That's your choice! Perfectly fine. For me, I don't want to close my eyes for what the world is actually thinking, even when they're in rage-mode. I think that makes your own thinking very narrow.

Also, it's a conscious choice they made - they're the only platform I know of that allows you saying anything with no penalty except for maybe a algorithmic one. That doesn't mean it sucks, or is a bad platform, or the transition failed.

[happosai]

Twitter won't open my eyes to the "world is actually thinking". It is a rather minor social media in the big picture:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-net...

There are certainly much better ways to learn what the world is thinking than a website without effective moderation. The problem was never "censorship" or "people are not allowed to say everything". The problem is the quantity of garbage the information supersewer generates and finding what is true and relevant.

[jeffhuys]

It’s interesting to me that we can have such different views of the same platform.

“Garbage”. “Supersewer”. I simply don’t see what you mean. Of course there IS garbage, but you’d actively have to seek it out. You’d have to scroll down all the replies to get to the shit. If you want to see that, it’s there, but if it doesn’t have value, it stays there. Up top are the sensible replies and discussion threads.

We can keep talking, but if you don’t want to see it, you’ll never see it.

[loktarogar]

> Of course there IS garbage, but you’d actively have to seek it out

I still instinctively open Twitter up most days. I scroll for a bit, see a couple of interesting tweets, but the majority is either garbage spam for views, overtly general racist tweets, purposeful right-wing distortion of facts to incite hate.

You go into any comments of a tweet that has gained a traction - the first comment will usually be "@grok is this true?", OF replies boosted by the original post (because the thread was garbage spam and they're getting paid), or obvious ChatGPT responses.

It feels really disheartening, especially having grown my career from the stuff i've seen and connections i've made on Twitter. Shell of its former self.

[regularjack]

Every time I open a Twitter link, most of the comments will be garbage.

[hobs]

Except for criticizing musk in the papers, as he's banned journalists, people "doxing" him by publishing his plane, etc

There's a million things you cant say, its now you are happy that the right wing nutjobs get to have their peace in public - that's the only part of the conversation that's "now allowed"

[jeffhuys]

I’ve already addressed the first part of your comment in another comment.

I don’t think there’s a million things you can’t say. I see tons of posts criticizing Elon. But I also see tons of people defending him in replies. This is what we should want. Discussion. Open talking. And that includes “right wing nutjobs”.

If the vision you’re seemingly okay with censoring is so damaging that you can’t fight it with words, is the opposing vision strong enough?

[nilamo]

I won't speak for others, but I refuse to use a service that doesnt work if I'm not signed in. But when it did work, there didn't appear to be overzealous banning, and all the banning conversation appeared to be coming from sources that deserved to be banned, imo.

So when you say "it's still good" while also mentioning thought police, I take what you're saying with a huge grain of salt, as I never noticed thought police to begin with, so less of something unnoticable sounds very close to "complete anarchy, nazis, and that's how we like it". Like 4chan put on a business suit.

[jeffhuys]

If you never noticed the thought police, you were of the kind of people that Twitter wanted there to exclusively be. That's okay, but not a realistic view of the world. However, people with differing ideologies were pushed away. Yes, that includes literal nazis. But that also includes people who don't agree with the status-quo and want to see something different. The old twitter gave the impression of a world where 99% of the people agree with the current state of things, which is just not reality.

X is the only platform where you can see the real state of the world, raw, unedited. That's INCREDIBLY valuable and I'm absolutely baffled by how everyone here seems to celebrate censorship. We fought wars over this.

[i80and]

Yeah the censorship is overbearing now. I've since deleted my account of a decade but just using the word "cis" got a post of mine immediately auto-moderated.

I think people talking about how new-Twitter is somehow a bastion of free speech or whatever are just telling on themselves about what they think speech is.

[jeffhuys]

Are you banned? Is your post deleted? No? Then it’s not censorship.

Again, if you don’t match with the vision, don’t use the platform. But you have to accept that the platform exists, is very popular, and allows free speech, and you can’t change that.

[drdeca]

I don’t think Elon is particularly principled on the topic of free speech, seeing the way he blocked those outgoing links to competitors a while ago.

Regarding the auto moderation of that word, what does happen when a post gets auto moderated? Does it get like, semi-hidden or something?

[jeffhuys]

They go to the bottom, behind a button you have to press to reveal them.

[rstat1]

*allows free speech Elon agrees with

which isn't really all that free after all.

[nilamo]

I recognize the benefits of open communication, while also not wanting to participate in something so gross. I'm absolutely baffled by people claiming censorship free is the only option, and that any moderation at all is bad. A free for all is not what I want, in any platform or space I participate in.

[jeffhuys]

I think this might be a reaction to the previous moderation which seemed to be extremely biased. The moderation that’s currently in place seems much less so, however some people seem to argue it’s now the same, just the other way around.

In my opinion a free-for-all is what the online world needs. But it’s just that, an opinion. Feel free to not participate. I’m interested in what you do participate in, except for HN, though - is there something better that doesn’t ban me for defending Elon, for instance? To put question marks by global policy? etc etc. That’s at least as popular as X is? We can just talk to huge names there, and call them out on their bullshit, if they spew it. That’s unbeatable.

[kemotep]

Well 2 years ago Elon completely broke twitter for me by requiring an account. 10 years of using twitter then poof no more twitter access.

I don’t know why an account is necessary to read updates from government agencies and local organizations after 10 years of not needing to do that.

[paulryanrogers]

"ACTUAL discussions" like what?

Because it would seem hate speech has had quite a surge:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[jeffhuys]

Of course it surges when you re-instate complete free speech. But now you could interact with them, discuss with them, maybe sway them another way. Or you just ignore them and scroll away, or even block them, so the algorithm knows you don't want that content.

They're already being pulled down by the alg. It's just allowed now, and why shouldn't it be? I think it's better for humanity overall if these people are not pushed into a small echo-chamber but instead can speak freely and openly.

We should go back to sticks & stones. Let hate flow off you and instead look for love, which is also still there.

[bananapub]

> Of course it surges when you re-instate complete free speech.

what? Elon routinely complies with random countries asking him to ban users, and routinely bans people he personally doesn't like. he even banned someone who was just reposting public flight data!

what on earth does "complete free speech" mean to you??!

[jeffhuys]

Routinely? I doubt that. Of course I don't agree with everything he does, but I agree with his vision.

[Vortigaunt]

First thing that pops up on google:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/25/elon-mu...

Anyone still swayed by his vision is painfully naive

[paulryanrogers]

His vision seems to be "freedom for me, not for thee"

[jeffhuys]

Nice. Good discussion.

[righthand]

And when all the hate speech proponents flood the platform with bots? What happens when pushing down is not enough because there is too much? What happens when there are so many new accounts posting hate speech you can’t block them either. Free speech and word detection algorithms are not good moderation they are lazy moderation that refuses to address the problem most people have with Twitter.

Twitter is not the US and does not guarantee free speech. To insist that it must because it’s a US company is entirely missing the point. Banning people is essentially ignoring people. Which is what the text of “sticks and stones” is instructing.

[jeffhuys]

I’ve never mentioned “because it’s a US company” so I’ll ignore that part of the message.

Sticks & stones is a general thing that’s missing in a lot of people nowadays. Trying to protect everyone from bad words will only make them react more when they inevitably will encounter said bad words.

As for the rest of the “what if”s, I guess we’ll see what happens when it happens. As of right now, my For You page is filled with science, discussions, tech, friends, well-known people having normal discussions with “plebs”, etc.

If you don’t find value in the platform, simply don’t use it. Use Bluesky if you want.

[righthand]

Correct I mentioned it. If Twitter wasn’t a US company we’d never be having a conversation about freedom of speech so be ignorant about that all you want. However it’s silly you choose that reasoning.

Isn’t your suggestion to remember the words of “sticks and stones” the same as you advocating for how everyone should protect themselves from bad words?

I don’t use either platform because I find short form writing utterly valueless for anything than marketing purposes. You may say “but I read a lot of good discussions on there”. Great for you but the discussions are still mostly short form rhetoric with little value other than “talking out loud”. The other half of discussions is split between jobless comedians and hate-speech-as-freedom-of-speech advocates. I will never get my science, news, etc from a quote box. There’s a reason I deleted my account 10 years ago.

[jeffhuys]

FYI long-form is possible since a few years, and actively used by a lot of people.

[wildpeaks]

As much as I hoped Blue Sky might succeed where Mastodon didn't, it's by far the platform where I've gotten the most unwanted dickpics and thirst traps, and the general vibe feels so shallow and performative.

The signal to noise ratio is so low even when curating feeds, it feels pointless to post anything meaningful anymore, it just gets drowned in the noise and bots.

[jeffhuys]

Oh wow, didn’t know that. I never left X but saw a lot of talk about BS when the transition happened. I just assumed it was a clone of Twitter with mostly the people who left.

That sucks tho. I’m not against other places existing if it makes people feel better.

[righthand]

That’s a pretty damning study, post-purchase hate speech is nearly half the Twitter content. Sounds like hate speech is the “actual discussions”.

[jeffhuys]

That seems like a weird take. If 80% of the internet is spam (which it very well could be), is spam the internet?

I guess censorship is a popular thing now on HN. Never thought I would see all you people advocating FOR censorship. I’m happy Elon seems unmoving in his stance on this. We need to progress.

[singleshot_]

I believe it’s called a “coherent speech product,” not censorship.

I loathe the poorly educated.

[paulryanrogers]

A lot of spam is censored by laws like CAN-SPAM act and fraud laws. Private mail services also censor spam with their own terms of service, with rules like DMARC.

[righthand]

The internet isn’t Twitter, people aren’t advocating for censoring the internet, they’re advocating for censoring a person on a digital service platform. If you don’t think you’d see people advocating for censorship on HackerNews then you don’t understand what HN platform is, because bans, downvotes, flagging, etc are all types of censorship.

If you don’t like the platform censoring you, go somewhere else or do what Elon did and buy the platform and change the rules for yourself.