911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dared to use twitter with only an anonymous email is my guess. musk demands you phone and biometrics
Phone number requirement was thankfully removed some time after Musk took over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...really? Elon Musk declares ‘cis’ and ‘cisgender’ will be considered slurs on Twitter that can be punishable with suspension https://fortune.com/2023/06/21/elon-musk-declares-cis-cisgen...
https://x.com/search?q=cisgender&src=typed_query&f=live There are tons and tons of people using the term. All the time. Last result was 11 seconds ago (as of posting this).
Maybe instead of trying to get rid of services that provide a more convenient access to X to non-logged-in users, they should realize that there is a real market behind these services - users that will likely never sign up to X, but who want to read/watch some content without the incessant nagging and limitations that X subjects non-logged-in users to?
Excuse my pedantry but "market" implies a possible audience/demographic to _sell_ to. If a user can't be arsed to sign up for Twitter (an action that costs nothing, AFAIK), what makes you think they will pay for read-only access to tweets? Speaking only for myself, well, no. If Elon doesn't want non-users to be able to read tweets then that's simply one section of the internet I'm swearing off. I'll get my news from…
They won't, that's why dealerships don't give away free cars but it's still a market.
Regardless of the legality of the service: I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally want to read what some people had to say about something. Even this is usually a mistake. It's probably better taken as entertainment. My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.
X should provide an option to make youor posts public. And govt reps should be required to use it.
It's not like one-way communication is a hard problem. Just post that stuff on a website ffs!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if the new owners of twitter give a shit about its sustainability. It is all about capturing the platform to change the conversation around 2024 US presidential election cycle and US politics. It’s effectively become a political propaganda machine owned by billionaires
He was forced to buy it after desperately trying to pull out, and shitlibs cheered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very much on the side of xcancel and nitter on this one, but I do think it's fair to point out that Twitter is free of monetary charge. It's not free in the sense that you do have to provide some personal information and data to them in exchange for that free account, but it isn't a huge roadblock for most people, however annoying it may be. Now that said, I sure hope Elon will pivot this and make these services…
The biggest frustration for a lot of people is that their municipalities use Twitter almost exclusively to communicate with their constituents, it _sucks_. I've pleaded and begged my city and county to have some other form of communication, in addition to Twitter/X, to mass distribute information.
Regardless of the legality of the service: I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally want to read what some people had to say about something. Even this is usually a mistake. It's probably better taken as entertainment. My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. Boy this would be nice! X have obviously decided that using the law to take down people fixing its issues is more profitable than fixing them. I'm really curious though, are they right? (Ignoring ethics etc) I used to glance at Twitter when it was less hostile, now I don't bother since it tries to force y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter heavily censors speech on the platform itself by downranking things they do not like without any transparency.
Back when they disliked and downranked the opposite kind of thing, nobody on your side agreed that it was "censorship".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is. It seems self-evident to me that the speech on Twitter is more free when it isn't behind a login wall. How could it not be? If you'd like to provide an actual counter-argument, I'd be happy to consider it.
Free Speech isn’t about who is listening, it’s about who is speaking. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t necessarily mean the person did not speak freely.
This is functionally the same as you not being able to say it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is arguing about the legal boundary of Freedom of speech, you're the only one making this argument. We're talking about the quolloquial "free speech", here.
Could you give your colloquial definition, because its clearly different than mine.