General sentiment might be this, but every social network (even Instagram and Facebook) can be good and productive if you change how you use them.

If you follow specific profiles/channels/pages and just read the feeds from them as if they were news, you are removing the toxic part (mostly infinite scrolling) and getting a resourceful feature.

If for some reason someone you need to follow is on X (twitter) only, you have to choose between losing a source or compromise with the platform.

I personally belong to the former group (and possibly you do, too), leaving behind sources, but not everyone likes it that way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

▲

vvillena 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The platform compromise is a new thing. One of the reasons people used Twitter was its open nature, enabling its use as a bulletin board where anyone could post a message and being sure that the message link was free for anyone to see. This isn't the case anymore, as X forces people to make accounts to see messages.

▲

spiderfarmer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you have to choose between losing a source or compromise with the platform

I thought so too. But after leaving 3 years ago it turns out: Not a single source is that important.

Also, as the importance increases, the likelihood of seeing the same information outside that hellhole increases linearly.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

secretsatan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But it’s still supporting a man who’s a toxic as they come and working hard to distort reality and undermine democracy, you won’t wash that toxic off.

▲

philipallstar 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Allowing more voices on the platform might've made it more toxic (who knows - you're not the judge of toxic) but at least we have left- and right-wing toxicity, instead of only left-wing. And we get a lot of additional non-toxic voices, which was the actual point.

▲

ImPostingOnHN an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Allowing more voices on the platform might've made it more toxic (who knows - you're not the judge of toxic)

Allowing the nazi voices definitely did. And while that dude isn't the judge of what is toxic, a majority of people are.

I don't know what you personally want to call it when someone posts condolences about a tragedy or massacre killing many people in their home country, and the nazis pop up to reply "you're next, [racial slur omitted]". Pretty sure most people would call that toxic, so it's toxic, even if a small minority of people disagree.

▲

secretsatan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You think there wasn’t right wing toxicity before?

	▲	philipallstar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Again, there's no point using a word like "toxicity".

▲

angoragoats 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]