Twitter could be an absolute heaven of discussion (not that I believe it'd be possible with 280 characters), but unless its open to anonymous users, don't expect me to read it any time soon.
1. I've read it enough over the past years to know what kind of discussion typically takes place on there. I'm glad we both agree that discussion is poor.
2. Blue-checkmarks to be heard better is literally pay-to-be-heard and is not a model I'm particularly fond of. Other pay-to-win structures are similarly anathema to how I want to have discussions with people.
3. Reports from media I trust contradict your opinion. Andrew Tate for example has been getting a lot of news recently, and it has become clear that Elon Musk paid Tate the posting bonus for being a popular guy on Twitter. Is that the kind of person Twitter wants to be elevating on their platform?
You make it sound like bots are the problem. What about misogynistic assholes who (pending the results of their current trial) may have led a human trafficking ring? Are these the blue-checkmarks that people are boosting on the platform?
There's something to be said about curation. Choosing who, and who does not, get boosted by your algorithms. You're talking about "vile" posts that you are glad are gone. What about Elon Musk's "cisgender" discussion? Is that the kind of stuff you like associating yourself with?
4. Respectable people I trust, such as plainsite, have been banned on Twitter. This is a chilling effect. If people I trust have been banned on Twitter, that lowers the odds of me participating in the discussion, because I know I'll be banned for posting public court documents and otherwise being a reasonable person.
The moderation and kinds of people that this new Twitter is going for is definitely in the wrong direction for me. I never wanted Twitter before, but it has taken huge steps away from what I care to align myself with.
1. I've read it enough over the past years to know what kind of discussion typically takes place on there. I'm glad we both agree that discussion is poor.
2. Blue-checkmarks to be heard better is literally pay-to-be-heard and is not a model I'm particularly fond of. Other pay-to-win structures are similarly anathema to how I want to have discussions with people.
3. Reports from media I trust contradict your opinion. Andrew Tate for example has been getting a lot of news recently, and it has become clear that Elon Musk paid Tate the posting bonus for being a popular guy on Twitter. Is that the kind of person Twitter wants to be elevating on their platform?
You make it sound like bots are the problem. What about misogynistic assholes who (pending the results of their current trial) may have led a human trafficking ring? Are these the blue-checkmarks that people are boosting on the platform?
There's something to be said about curation. Choosing who, and who does not, get boosted by your algorithms. You're talking about "vile" posts that you are glad are gone. What about Elon Musk's "cisgender" discussion? Is that the kind of stuff you like associating yourself with?
4. Respectable people I trust, such as plainsite, have been banned on Twitter. This is a chilling effect. If people I trust have been banned on Twitter, that lowers the odds of me participating in the discussion, because I know I'll be banned for posting public court documents and otherwise being a reasonable person.
The moderation and kinds of people that this new Twitter is going for is definitely in the wrong direction for me. I never wanted Twitter before, but it has taken huge steps away from what I care to align myself with.