I considered leaving Twitter as soon as Elon Musk acquired it in 2022, just not wanting to be part of a community that could be bought, least of all by a man like him – the obnoxious “long hours at a high intensity” bullying of his staff began immediately. But I’ve had some of the most interesting conversations of my life on there, both randomly, ambling about, and solicited, for stories: “Anyone got catastrophically lonely during Covid?”; “Anyone hooked up with their secondary school boy/girlfriend?” We used to call it the place where you told the truth to strangers (Facebook was where you lied to your friends), and that wide-openness was reciprocal and gorgeous.

“Twitter has broken the mould,” Mulhall says. “It’s ostensibly a mainstream platform which now has bespoke moderation policies. Elon Musk is himself inculcated with radical right politics. So it’s behaving much more like a bespoke platform, created by the far right. This marks it out significantly from any other platform. And it’s extremely toxic, an order of magnitude worse, not least because, while it still has terms of service, they’re not necessarily implementing them.”

Global civil society, though, finds it incredibly difficult to reject the free speech argument out of hand, because the alternative is so dark: that a number of billionaires – not just Musk but also Thiel with Rumble, Parler’s original backer, Rebekah Mercer (daughter of Robert Mercer, funder of Breitbart), and, indirectly, billionaire sovereign actors such as Putin – are successfully changing society, destroying the trust we have in each other and in institutions. It’s much more comfortable to think they’re doing that by accident, because they just love “free speech”, than that they’re doing that on purpose. “Part of understanding the neo-reactionary and ‘dark enlightenment’ movements, is that these individuals don’t have any interest in the continuation of the status quo,”

  • TehWorld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I won’t even click on links to Twitter anymore. I had an account in the beginning but even back then the signal to noise ratio was stupid low. Now It’s all bots and nazis.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    And is it ethical to keep using it?

    How is this even a debate? No! The answer is fucking “no”!

    • Womble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      hmmm I wonder if that is considered in the thousands of words of this article…

      It got more unpleasant after the blue-tick fiasco: identity verification became something you could buy, which destroyed the trust quotient. So I joined the rival platform Mastodon, but fast realised that I would never get 70,000 followers on there like I had on Twitter. It wasn’t that I wanted the attention per se, just that my gang wasn’t varied or noisy enough. There’s something eerie and a bit depressing about a social media feed that doesn’t refresh often enough, like walking into a shopping mall where half the shops have closed down and the rest are all selling the same thing.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s something eerie and a bit depressing about a social media feed that doesn’t refresh often enough

        Society’s modern artificially induced ADHD on display here. Anybody remember when websites were all static and didn’t dynamically change at all?

        • nyan@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          CGI was a pretty early invention, so you would have had to be on the Web very early indeed to remember when it was entirely static. Main difference between the server-side era and now was that the usual way for pages to show changes back then was to autotrigger the browser’s reload mechanism after a fixed time.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you had bothered to read the article, you would know this isn’t actually the gotcha you think it is.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I did read the article. It’s a bunch of whinging and rationalization as she furiously tries to paper over the real reason she refuses to quit Twitter — her precious 70k followers. That’s all that matters to these journalists.

    • tortina_original@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Journalists” still love Twitter because they don’t need to do any real investigative work anymore, they just report on “he said, she said” idiocy. Instant drama and source of clicks.

      So much of news these days seem to be “someone said something (on Twitter)”.

      Gossip generation…

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If someone is still questioning if they should be on Twitter, then they don’t know enough about what’s going on to speak about why people shouldnt still be using it.

    It’s not exactly complicated.