Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 472 posts

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#321

Post by glenstein »

FortiDude wrote: post #316
mcherm wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't get myself to see this as a genuine disadvantage. On Mastodon you can choose the server to use (and thus the moderation). Sure, this means you can choose a server run by a 12-year-old who moderates poorly. But if you don't want that... don't pick that server! The problem (no, ONE of the many problems) with creating good moderation is that different people have different definitions of what constitutes "g…

So let's say a lot of people think in that way and avoid instances managed by nameless accounts. Where does that leave us? Well, maybe people will flock to the few instances ran by transparent, accountable and competent people. Maybe some apolitical non-profit? Maybe a group of passionate engineers with spare change? In any case those instances would become pretty massive and the costs would skyrocket and...... well,…

.....or they would find an equilibrium that doesn't require massive centralization. Your analogy gets from point A to point be with a lot of empty speculation and hand waving.

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#322

Post by [deleted] »

Aeolun wrote: post #292
hristov wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference isn't really who but how much money. One uses a lot of goods and services in ordinary life. Generally speaking one hopes that the provider of these goods and services uses their resources efficiently to provide them for a reasonable price including reasonable profit. When a leveraged buyout happens (this is true for most leveraged buyouts) a large cost is put into the business that wasn't there be…

I’m afraid I don’t understand how Twitter can end up with debt from Musk buying it. How does that even work? Twitter the company takes out a huge loan to pay the current shareholders a fortune (which is decided by those same shareholders, no conflict of interest there at all). But who the fuck would give them a loan like that (like you say, just to have Musk at the helm)?

[deleted]

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#323

Post by mackatap »

madaxe_again wrote: post #224
jdub wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter was already under a cloud while Musk was grandstanding his acquisition stunt. Once he was forced to go through with it, his immediate actions and communication confirmed how much chaos we (users, staff, customers) were in for. Then after one week, awfully mishandled mass layoffs, demands to massively reduce infrastructure costs, etc. Nothing's changed? Sure it has. Trust and confidence are hard to build, easy…

“How much chaos” The only “chaos” I’m aware of is the /b/ N**r spam invasion that occurred one afternoon? The rest seems to just be Musk doing Musk and manufactured outrage (as I really do not understand how $8/mo is breaking the bank for popular celebrities and brands) over charging for validation. Anyway, down with Habbo Hotel.

I still think people are just mad because verified won't be a status symbol anymore. Vanity, nothing more. No matter how Musk handled this, he would've gotten hate because he is just a controversial dude, and he does like to stir the pot.

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#324

Post by glenstein »

neals wrote: post #319

Mastodon is too difficult to understand for the average user. I got on some page where I needed to select a room of some sort, most of it was in german and I couldn't find Trump or anybody I wanted to listen to. Is anybody actually believing that there will be some mass migration?

There's been numerous mass migrations to Mastodon since 2016, from different individual communities. The furry community, lgbtq+ individuals who wanted to leave twitter, comic book artists who overlapped with the two prior groups, political news junkies from India, and every year there's a couple more.

I don't think that all of Twitter is going to migrate but just some slice of the user base, just like all the previous times.

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#325

Post by tchaffee »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #312
tchaffee wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. The act or practice of conspicuously displaying one's awareness of and attentiveness to political issues, matters of social and racial justice, etc., especially instead of taking effective action. [1] And from the person who coined the term: British journalist James Bartholomew claims to have originated the modern usage of the term "virtue signalling," in a 2015 Spectator article. His 2015 formulation…

You went from "action" to "effective action" from the previous comment to this one. Important difference.

Fair criticism if you ignore the coiner of the term and focus only on the first definition I supplied.

I thought it was obvious that talking about moving to a platform is very different from actually making the move. The author has presumably moved, which is taking effective action and can be contrasted with people who are saying they are going to move but haven't done anything about it.

You should also note that the coiner of the term disagrees with you:

No one actually has to do anything. Virtue comes from mere words

I don't think it's fair to call it virtue signaling when someone took effective action. Does that clarify enough?

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#326

Post by Aeolun »

andsoitis wrote: post #317
Aeolun wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m afraid I don’t understand how Twitter can end up with debt from Musk buying it. How does that even work? Twitter the company takes out a huge loan to pay the current shareholders a fortune (which is decided by those same shareholders, no conflict of interest there at all). But who the fuck would give them a loan like that (like you say, just to have Musk at the helm)?

> I’m afraid I don’t understand how Twitter can end up with debt from Musk buying it. How does that even work? This article explains: (a) how leveraged buyouts work, (b) how Musk's acquisition is different from a regular LBO, and (c) what debt Twitter now has due to the deal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/elon-musks-twitter-d...

Thanks! I’ll give it a read.

Edit: I must say that even after I read it I have trouble understanding how any of that happens except through well connected people moving money around to their own benefit.

The banks are on the hook, but it’s not really the banks because it’s not their money they are lending out.

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#327

Post by causi »

tchaffee wrote: post #306
concordDance wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on talking to those who dislike him they're mostly pretty hating him for things he hasnt done, views he doesnt hold and traits he doesnt have (no, he isnt a success because he had an uber wealthy father who owned an emerald mine, it was a tiny share in a mine and his father contributed little to Musks business ventures). Musk is a driven, childish, stubborn, fairly intelligent, 90s era libertarian who really li…

> Based on talking to those who dislike him So anecdotal evidence? > they're mostly pretty hating him for things he hasnt done, views he doesnt hold and traits he doesnt have So they have actual reasons to hate him. Superficial reasons, but you didn't once mention anything having to do with it being in vogue. Evidence of it being in vogue would be people who don't know why they hate Elon, but they do know their frien…

Musk is eminently hatable. He's also a competent businessman. The odds of him turning Twitter into Stormfront are very low, yet many are acting like it's already happened. What is the point of calling for a boycott of a company that hasn't yet done the thing you don't like?

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#328

Post by oktoberpaard »

cloutchaser wrote: post #186
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #176

I find this hilarious. We all understand that the core reason some people might want to hurt twitter is because it is no longer going to follow the moderation policy that they liked (namely, silencing people with different political opinions). Yet, people can't name this reason honestly, and invent some other thin weiled excuses like 'layoffs are baaaad and unethical'. Bold prediction: this influencer with 40k follow…

Neil young is back on Spotify. Nuff said.

Not in my country, except for songs that appear on albums that are outside of his control. I do expect him to eventually return, though.

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#329

Post by tsimionescu »

briantakita wrote: post #296
mcherm wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like it might be something I hadn't heard about. Can you provide some sources I can learn from?

Project Veritas is one...sure there was a hidden camera but some of the employees were quite candid with their beliefs. I don't mean to paint a broad stroke, but from the interviews, it seems like the culture of the company leaned a certain political direction.

Project Veritas has a long history of deceptive editing and outright manufactured reporting, so I wouldn't trust any report you see out of them.

Re: It looks like I’m moving to Mastodon

#330

Post by briantakita3 »

tchaffee wrote: post #313
briantakita wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project Veritas had some videos about Twitter employees declaring their politics & their willingness to censor political opponents. I don't think anyone on the accessibility team was interviewed but Twitter as a whole did have a political leaning. Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue & for some reason it was allowed to continue.

> I don't think anyone on the accessibility team was interviewed So you don't have a source to back up your claim. > Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim. Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilit…

> So you don't have a source to back up your claim.

I do. The stated political beliefs of the people being interviewed & their claim that many @ Twitter shared their beliefs. Also the actions of the company.

> It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim.

It is. If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person. If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality. This is the heart of accessibility. Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility.

> Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities.

The Twitter human rights & accessibility team also includes "human rights". Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating. The "human rights & accessibility" team failed to do their job of upholding the human rights of those who were banned for political speech.

Post reply on HN