| ▲ | moopie 4 hours ago |
| There’s really no reason to bother with social networks owned by literal far right supporters |
|
| ▲ | smith7018 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I generally agree but I'm still frequently linked to X and I'm either unable to view the content because I don't have an account or I don't click because I don't want to visit the site. These services allow me to access the user content without having to go through X, itself. I wish hackers/the tech industry moved off of X like most users but here we are. |
| |
| ▲ | moomin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've reached the point where I go "If it's on Twitter I don't need to know". We'll all reach that point eventually. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Problem is, sometimes I do need to see the content. If only someone would "just" fucking build a viable replacement for Twitter. It's a weekend's work with the tools now available. C'mon. (pokes stick) | | |
| ▲ | deaf_coder an hour ago | parent [-] | | You mean like Bluesky, Threads, or Mastodon? Those services are available, however, people would not stop using Twitter and will continue to do so until we stop consuming their content, then maybe they will finally get off Twitter... |
|
| |
| ▲ | sureMan6 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not the fault of the users when there's no viable alternative Bluesky is founded by the same founders of Twitter and is not open and has ridiculous policies, Mastodon is the same, even less popular and even more tyrannical So the choice for most users, including myself, is tightly moderated spaces run by awful people, or a website run by a literal Nazi, but that at least doesn't ban me on sight The Musk twitter acquisition (and the sieg heil at the inauguration) were pivotal moments where a good alternative could've surfaced but instead we got twitter 2.0 (and moving from Twitter to Twitter 2 seems entirely pointless even if it wasn't badly moderated on top of that) | | |
| ▲ | numpad0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IMO the reason why BS just ended up being Twitter 2.0, or 1.2 even, or why Twitter went down its path in the first place, is that the US and EU are no longer producing enough content to justify ownership or continuous iterations of such a system. Otherwise it wouldn't have been forced upon who begrudgingly got funding secured. Any of then-GAFA could have bought it and none wanted to touch it. The bad moderation on those platforms, I think, is a desperate attempt to align platform cultures to the moderating entities' standards that are no longer comprehensible to users, if known at all, like a kid on a push car moving away from the park trying to steer it back. It seemed fine until 2015 or so, streaming hundreds of novel tweets per second per user, many with novel images. Then things went downhill. Musk can't be the sole villain in it. | |
| ▲ | Philpax 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Bluesky is founded by the same founders of Twitter and is not open and has ridiculous policies Huh? It is remarkably open and the policies are not really an issue. | | |
| ▲ | numpad0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Bluesky has the same moderation issues as Twitter. There are people complaining their recommendation feeds are full of macho men nudity and/or furry images, or flooded by far left infights(not like relative to self-proclaimed centrism but FAR left), or straight up getting banned after they've specifically chosen the most appropriate contents, things like that. Weird thing is that my feed is largely fine other than those gotten banned went back to Twitter. Only politics topics I get are neutral, concerns in global economy, some US and more often Ukraine. No dick pics or furries or antisemetism, just cats, more cats, food pics, infosec stuffs, all as I were back on Twitter in 2009 or so. But there are enough reports of negative experience, so moderatuon is likely still a bit problematic. Or that compounding with lack of passionate users. | |
| ▲ | Vaushite 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've gotten banned from Blue Sky for absolutely no discernible reason, and the main feeds are basically centrist slop |
| |
| ▲ | wolvoleo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mastodon doesn't have policies. Every instance has their own policies. That's the strength of mastodon. | | |
| ▲ | TFNA 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Mastodon devs have said many times that the mainstream fediverse, the original community that federates among itself, has a distinct culture and values that they wish to maintain in perpetuity. That is "policies". Yes, the tech allows parallel ecosystems of servers that don't federate with that original community, but when people talk about "Mastodon" like the OP did, they aren't talking about offshoot ecosystems. | |
| ▲ | numpad0 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Gargron, Apple, Google, all has/had policies for Mastodon, which were incompatible with more than 2/3 of its users(at peak). | | |
| ▲ | Vaushite 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know how to understand this. Google owns Mastodon? | | |
| ▲ | numpad0 an hour ago | parent [-] | | App distribution platforms threatened Mastodon client apps with a universal Mastodon ban unless the app publicly condemn and denounce Gab(proto Truth Social) with hardcoded connection refusal and every single servers would implement effective moderation. Gargron also decided that laws in his home country considers even linking to certain images illegal and various forms of labelings and voluntary policing from abroad tangential to legality and useless. They packaged those standards and decisions as something along necessary measures to curb terrorism or whatever, and took the measures to effectively cut off said 2/3 plus some off of the "main Mastodon network", so to speak. Those measures lasted for years, until I think less than a year ago(you'll know what I'm talking about from my immediate comment history). | | |
| ▲ | Vaushite an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you're supposed to have a Mastodon app, it's a web app. The gatekeepers don't allow apps that connect to arbitrary servers just like they don't allow new browsers, you could use them to bypass the 30% tax. You could have a kolektiva app but they obviously don't want to. What's the ""main Mastodon network""? | | |
| ▲ | numpad0 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sound logic doesn't matter to App Store review policies. The browser argument was made, and ignored. They were told to do what they were told or have the entire Mastodon compatible apps internally blacklisted. Gab/Truth was easy and not that controversial, but content moderation was a lot more problematic, so they introduced a published instance blocklist system and had operators join the condemnation while also throwing wrenches at instance chooser interfaces online and/or hardcoded, because otherwise the "main" part will become a permanent minority. I think any modern LLMs would see/know what I mean. Ask your agent if you need more information along this lore. | | |
| ▲ | Vaushite a minute ago | parent [-] | | This is the first time I've ever read a commentator tell me to just ask an LLM to write their comment for them. But for "just send me the prompt" to work, I still have to know the prompt you planned to use? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Every instance has their own policies. That's the strength of mastodon. And it's biggest weakness because instance admins keep bitchfighting with each other, holding their users hostage. | |
| ▲ | jrm4 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is emphatically the weakness as well. I too loved the idea of "they all have their own policies," until it came to be that those policies ended up being utterly childish "I'm taking my ball and going home the second anyone says any little thing I don't like." |
|
| |
| ▲ | jjulius 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I generally agree but I'm still frequently linked to X... ... so? Being linked to it is not an obligation to bother with it, neither is FOMO. |
|
|
| ▲ | jrm4 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is a VERY GOOD reason to do this, and this is because they are still very powerful and prevalent. Closing your eyes and ears and going NAAH NAAH NAAH I'M GOING TO PRETEND IT DOESNT EXIST is a wildly stupid way to approach things like twitter when they are still so influential. I appreciate experimenting with "boycotting," but when the dust settles and the thing is still very much there, you have to engage with that fact. |
| |
| ▲ | nancyminusone an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Depends if you thought Twitter ever had any value at all ever. I once made an account, hung around for 2 weeks,then never opened it again. So since musk owns it, it has no more or less than relevance than before. | |
| ▲ | VCFundedGenYer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're just objectively wrong. There is no reason to entertain a Nazi website. You sound hurt as if you work for X. |
|
|
| ▲ | afpx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not a very helpful comment for someone not in the know. I couldn't find anything political on their landing page. |
| |
|
| ▲ | bluecalm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you think Musk is far right you will have a really bad time in coming years.
Musk holds very few far right views in comparison to parties very close to power in many EU countries for example. He is against mass immigration, especially from Islamic countries. That is a very mainstream view though. There is nothing 'far' about it. |
| |
| ▲ | Vaushite 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Everyone is against "mass" immigration as in "let's go to country X and gather a million people and bring them to country Y", that's not controversial It is controversial when you start pointing to individual immigrants already in country Y and saying "hey you, get the fuck out". Which is of course why people like Musk always try to frame things as the first one. They always say things like "the president is importing one million illegals" and never say things like "one million different people decided to come here, all for different reasons" | |
| ▲ | ashkankiani 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | His nazi salute looked pretty far up and to the right. Twice, btw. | |
| ▲ | bjoli an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He aligns with people like the AfD. Or as we say:
It it sieg heils like a duck... | |
| ▲ | moopie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | numpad0 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's just a gorgeous free lunch tavern if you didn't even understand English through LLM and American right wing politics was just the cash pile for patrons to shovel into the fireplace. There's some likely made up charts online[1] for country stats of Twitter right now, and Twitter is allegedly 2.5x more popular than it is in the US in the top two countries, which are incidentally known for strong-ish purchasing power and near-nonexistent English literacy. Musk's ongoing massive self humiliation is largely contained to the US/English speaking space. Other parts of the world with no strong cultural understandings and pathways from the US and its politics, which is quite substantial still, are fine, ish. Things like LLM auto translation haven't made a change to that situation; it only strengthened the reverse of that pathway. 1: https://soax.com/research/twitter-active-users |
|
| ▲ | stronglikedan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Of course there is, don't be silly. There's also no alternative at the moment, or for the foreseeable future. Sure, there's some knockoffs that try hard, but they're still jokes. |
| |
|
| ▲ | JeremyNT an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's a huge cohort of people who are convinced they're somehow immune to right wing propaganda and continue posting information exclusively to sites owned by reactionary oligarchs. Sometimes that information is useful or important, which is why nitter and its ilk are sorely needed. |
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | sergiotapia 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are the reason Bioware is now dead and scattered to the winds. |
| |
| ▲ | moopie 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, me pointing out that Elon Musk supports far right parties is the reason why EA execs decided to shut down BioWare to pay themselves more |
|
|
| ▲ | calvinmorrison 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What if i am part of the far right? |
| |
|
| ▲ | add-sub-mul-div 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For someone who's been on Twitter for a long time, these alternatives function as a good off-ramp that's easier than quitting entirely and abruptly. I deleted my account a few years ago knowing I'd still be able to see some of the content without viewing their ads or contributing my own content. |
|
| ▲ | Markoff 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Except when tons of gov owned services (police, firemen, emergency services) are using it to communicate with citizens... |
|
| ▲ | beanjuiceII 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | moopie 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Elon Musk supports Le Pen and she’s in the Nationalist Rally party, which was started by literal SS members And that’s just my quick googling | | |
| ▲ | Akronymus an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | And the democrats were in favor of slavery by that same logic | |
| ▲ | hagbard_c 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Assuming you're American and assuming you ever cast a vote you'll have voted for the party which pushed slavery, from which the KKK was born and which pushed for segregation and the Jim Crow laws, i.e. the "democratic" party. | | |
| ▲ | moopie 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You should blame Nixon for using the southern strategy and making alliance of the racists that gave us Donald Trump then Imagine going from freeing slaves to hunting people like Ilhan Omar just because she’s not white |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | hagbard_c 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the same vein there is no reason to bother with social networks owned by literal far left supporters, i.e. nearly all the others. Combined these two statements lead to the conclusion that hardly any social networks are worth bothering which is something I can get behind. |
| |
| ▲ | overfeed an hour ago | parent [-] | | > In the same vein there is no reason to bother with social networks owned by literal far left supporters Name one |
|
|
| ▲ | strideashort 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| When you go far left, everything looks far right. Seriously, we have a problem labeling anything not left “far right”. It is of course by design and has always been (who is not with us is against us). Not that right is any better, but at list they don’t label everyone across “antifa” or whatever. That said, i do not endorse Musk, especially his infamous gesture. |
| |
| ▲ | Steltek 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You don't need to go anywhere to see that Musk is far right. If you're going to claim otherwise, you're gonna need to bring some solid evidence. The "left" spans such a huge range right now that to be "not left" is basically far right. A Republican opposing Trump is _extremely_ rare (and usually excommunicates them from the party) while on the left, you have AOC, Omar, etc actively sharing a party with Fetterman and Manchin. Right/far-right was a thing in the 2010's but not any more. | | |
| ▲ | portmanteur 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is there a list of things or beliefs that make someone "Far right"? Is there a list or reason why being labeled "far right" (by others, not oneself) should be disqualifying, or worthy of having your services abused? Nitter and its forks are in violation of the X.com terms of service, which is why they are facing legal challenges. Those challenges may be easily routed around with other technology, but Nitter and its forks are still violating the services brazenly. Are "far right" people beneath the law? Is it okay to steal from someone on the "far right"? Is it okay to commit violence against someone on the "far right"? | | | |
| ▲ | strideashort 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ah yes, you only need to set the label, those who disagree need to prove the negative. Pretty typical. What is “far right”, btw? What are objective measurable criteria? > The "left" spans such a huge range right now that to be "not left" is basically far right Jesus Christ, you can’t be serious. But then again, I am not surprised that you are. | |
| ▲ | hagbard_c 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The right spans such a huge range right now that not to be right is to be "far-left". A "democrat" opposing the OmniCause ("climate, migration and 'palestine'") is _extremely_ rare and usually gets excommunicated from the Party, e.g. Fetterman and Manchin (whom you for some reason listed as 'democrats' even though the Party does its best to label and shun them) while on the right you have people ranging from Massey to Trump, Vance to Rubio, Wiles to Collins. So maybe it is in the eye of the beholder? I certainly see far more labelling coming from the "left" side of the spectrum than from the "right" side although they're certainly catching up lately now that the communist zombie has risen from its grave again. On the "right" the general idea of the "left" seems to be that they're 'stupid', 'naive' and 'uninformed' while on the "left" the general idea of the "right" seems to be that they're 'evil', 'narrow-minded', 'racist' and '*-phobe'. Neither of these general ideas are true but that doesn't seem to bother anyone. |
| |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Er, Musk did a Nazi salute and publicly supported the AfD in Germany. What else do you need to agree that he is far right? Wear an SS outfit? Put some people in ovens? | | |
| ▲ | strideashort 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah, AfD, the party with female lesbians leader, right? typical far right, point taken. Otherwise, yes, I think labeling any party which works within the legal bounds as “far” is dangerous. Because there are legit far groups which should not be permitted on both sides of the spectrum. And we better know what is legitimate and what not. | | |
| ▲ | bjoli an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The leader can be a lesbian and still far right. They are against gay marriage, against talking about homosexuality in schools. There were gay Nazis, even high up. Röhm for example. Iirc Weidel herself has made statements regarding how the society should always promote heteronormativity. | | |
| ▲ | strideashort an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The leader can be a lesbian and still far right. Pure comedy at this point, seriously, this is hilarious. |
| |
| ▲ | surgical_fire an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think homosexuals can't be far right? AfD wants to do mass deportations (because nothing bad ever happened when a party in Germany had the idea to mass deport people based on ethnicity). Their leader can be a lesbian and still have a platform that is pretty extremely to the right https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/07/europe/afd-first-place-sa... > Otherwise, yes, I think labeling any party which works within the legal bounds as “far” is dangerous Keep in mind that the NSDAP also operated within the legal boundaries. Based on your asinine rationality, labeling the fucking nazis in early 1930s as far right would be "dangerous". | | |
| ▲ | strideashort 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Keep in mind that the NSDAP also operated within the legal boundaries. I am no expert but you might be correct - quick search shows they exploited legal loopholes, essentially hacked the system. I am afraid we haven’t learned much feom it as recent history shows. That said, legal framework has thankfully changed since and in Europe there is the Europen Convention of Human Rights, plus the constitutional rights. That said, they are not failable, and are equally explotable by left and right, especially if the conditions are right, such as fear. So ok, point taken, even those who operate within legal bounds today need to be watched closely - on all sides. And yes I think being homosexual and far anything is pretty weird, as neither far left nor right would tolerate homosexuality IMO. Socialism proved that. And btw, despite what historians tell, the NSDAP sold itself to the voters on the _left_ ideas. Fascism likewise. In fact, when blinded, some left thinkers have enforsed fascist ideas. Again, hilarious. But true. Here are some points from fascist manifesto if you don’t believe me: - Universal suffrage by regional list voting, with proportional representation, voting and eligibility for women. - Minimum age for voters lowered to 18; minimum age for deputies lowered to 25. - The prompt enactment of a state law enshrining the legal eight-hour workday for all jobs. - Minimum wages. - The participation of workers' representatives in the technical operation of industry. - The entrusting to the proletarian organizations themselves (who are morally and technically worthy) of the management of public industries or services. - The speedy and complete settlement of the railroad workers and all transportation industries. - A necessary amendment of the Disability and Old Age Insurance Bill by lowering the age limit, currently proposed at 65, to 55. It’s comical that an organisation endorsing and expanding these same ideas is called “antifa”. In fact, people today have no clue what fascism was, they just use it as label for whatever they disagree with, same as “far right”. Those who don’t know history are indeed condemned to repeat it. |
|
|
|
|
