I suppose that time will tell. Twitter is in the midst of an experiment to see if social network effects will keep users around despite unlimited levels of political hostility, abuse, and algorithmic shenanigans from the ownership. My impression is that there’s a limit and we’ve crossed it post election as Bluesky has been gaining a million users each day, but my bias is showing.

▲

zarzavat 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

Twitter is a global social network. Clearly Musk made some very questionable business decisions e.g. changing the name, the aborted attempt to ban links to outside profiles, etc, but that period seems to have settled, and the main reason for leaving now is the rightward politicization.

If you live in the US then yes that's a seriously compelling reason to leave, but a large number of Twitter's users are not using English, they're not involved in US politics, and don't have much reason to switch unless Musk seriously upsets the operation of the platform.

	▲	rectang 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		Whatever. The original point I was trying to make was a comparison of usability between Bluesky and Mastodon. But everything has to be about Elon Musk, so here we are.

▲

MaxHoppersGhost 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

> despite unlimited levels of political hostility, abuse, and algorithmic shenanigans from the ownership

This was happening before Musk bought it but now that it’s coming from the socially unacceptable side of the political spectrum people don’t like it

▲

supplied_demand 8 months ago | parent [-]

It is now a private company, with an owner who openly campaigned for a particular candidate and is now expected to take a role in that candidate's administration.

You can see the difference, right?

▲

MaxHoppersGhost 8 months ago | parent [-]

One is certainly more visibly political while the other is much harder to see. Seems like even you are confused by it.

▲

supplied_demand 8 months ago | parent [-]

So, you do see a difference. Meanwhile, you still ignore the difference in being a public vs. private company and the necessary disclosures that come from that difference.

That said, please open my eyes. I have yet to see you provide anything to support your stance that the publicly-traded, pre-Elon version of Twitter was equally as active in pushing a political agenda as the current version.

It's ok to admit, even if the guy is on your team.

▲

ipaddr 8 months ago | parent [-]

The recovered documents that showed communication between the whitehouse and twitter resulting in censorship around covid and other issues like the laptop from hunter biden. It was political, hidden and many will say eviler before Musk.

	▲	supplied_demand 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		I assume you are referring to the documents released by Elon Musk, the person mentioned in this thread who is overtly political. I think he's proven that he isn't a reliable narrator on these topics via his public comments. Just to be safe, we have the reporting which proves that there were many censorship requests from the Trump Administration and other Republican officeholders like Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik. [0] ===Elon Musk's "Twitter Files" focus on Democrats, but former administration officials and Twitter employees say Trump’s team and other Republicans routinely demanded posts be taken down=== Why do you think Elon chose not to release this information in the "recovered documents"? In my view, it is further proof that he has turned Twitter into an overtly political machine. Prior to him, both sides played a game of trying to pressure Twitter to serve their purposes. Now, Twitter openly serves the purposes of one side of the aisle over the other. You might agree with that side's opinion, but it doesn't change how he has made the platform itself political and actively hidden the political actions of people on his side. Sounds pretty evil to me. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...