Exactly. If you boycott X, shouldn't you also boycott the people who are on X? But this kind of slacktivism has always been more virtue signaling than anything.

▲

azan_ 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t want to crate account there because I’ll get into endless useless discussions. And you can’t use this website without an account.

▲

pickleRick243 9 hours ago | parent [-]

why is that? Why can't you just use it in read only fashion?

	▲	fabian2k 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No idea how it looks right now, but at some point Twitter started to block reading replies without an account. And sometimes it blocked even more, so you could not follow links to read.
	▲	frogulis 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think this changed recently, but at least prior to that, when not logged in, you only saw the initial post and none of the replies.
	▲	8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

MPSimmons 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems intellectually dishonest to blanket-label any principled stance that you disagree with as "virtue signaling".

▲

pickleRick243 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the claim is that the principled stance would be to ignore all X content.

▲

ceejayoz 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is just the "yet you participate in society" meme again.

▲

bbg2401 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it's not. Don't be so intellectually lazy.

The author of the comment higher up is describing a person who is boycotting X because they are strongly against its stewardship and moderation but regardless continues to find ways to indulge themselves in the content produced by users of X, for other users of X.

How else should we describe the position held? It's clearly not entirely principled and veers directly into performative action (i.e. virtue signalling).

I admit I'm not nor have been a Twitter/X user so am able to look at the situation without a sense of entitlement or attachment.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The author of the comment higher up is describing a person who is boycotting X because they are strongly against its stewardship and moderation but regardless continues to find ways to indulge themselves in the content produced by users of X, for other users of X. Yes. Because we have to participate in a society in which sometimes, that's where the info is. Some towns only post their announcements on Facebook/X! Some people prominent on my framework of choice are only on X. > How else should we describe the position held? It's clearly not entirely principled and veers directly into performative action (i.e. virtue signalling). Virtue isn't a binary. I can reduce my externalities, even if I can't eliminate them.

▲

cudder 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really, unfortunately. If it were just a bunch of bros laughing at fascist memes amongst themselves I would happily boycott everything, but unfortunately a lot of "public" service announcements and discourse also happens on 卐itter. Things like utility companies' and emergency services announcements, city council decisions, public transport notices, official statements by MEPs/local politicians/companies, etc. Not to mention a certain demented orange geriatric who happens to control nukes and posts his daily threats and declarations of war there.

These are all things I want to stay informed on, and given the choice would rather read elsewhere. Often I get the same information from secondary sources and manage to avoid that, but even then on controversial things I prefer to check the source directly.

	▲	asdff 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Things like utility companies' and emergency services announcements I am shocked you get this served via twitter instead of usual service notices for these things. I don't use twitter and I still get these notices and other news.