Live data from Hacker News

EFF is leaving X

eff.org

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: EFF is leaving X

#861
post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story behind the numbers they present clearly demonstrates that X is censoring/shadowbanning them. Going from 600MM to 13MM impressions/yr -- losing 98% of their impressions! -- is no accident but clearly Musk's thumb on the scale. Imagine what this means if you are trying to gauge impact of a post. Remember, X is giving them zero information about who they're preventing from seeing it. Impressions is the main da…

Is censorship the only possible explanation for the drop in impressions? Presumably the vast majority of impressions before were from bots.

"From bots" =)

The only thing Elmo managed to do was block legitimate and fun bots posting silly stuff.

The actual pretending-to-be-humans bots / professional trolls that argue for any viewpoint they get paid to endorse are still there in full force. They even pay the fee for the checkmark.

Re: EFF is leaving X

#862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story behind the numbers they present clearly demonstrates that X is censoring/shadowbanning them. Going from 600MM to 13MM impressions/yr -- losing 98% of their impressions! -- is no accident but clearly Musk's thumb on the scale. Imagine what this means if you are trying to gauge impact of a post. Remember, X is giving them zero information about who they're preventing from seeing it. Impressions is the main da…

They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky. Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming. This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.

So if they're politically neutral, should they have an account on Truth Social too in your opinion?

Re: EFF is leaving X

#863

There does seem to be evidence that X (formerly Twitter) is a dying platform, but what surprised me here is that longtime platforms like Snapchat, Reddit and even Pinterest get more MAUs than X - and this is more October 2025: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-net... It would be really interesting to learn if brands and advertisers are seeing the same thing?

I find it hard to believe that WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram have almost the exact same number of users. This seems to be skewed data.

Meta cheats.

They're the king of dark patterns that bully ppl into at least signing up for services they don't actually want to use.

Re: EFF is leaving X

#864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe that WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram have almost the exact same number of users. This seems to be skewed data.

Are they not the same users? They're all part of the same org, so it seems likely that accounts for the others are mirrored or auto-created or whatever.

plus meta cheats with all their dark patterns and UI manipulations

Re: EFF is leaving X

#865
post #724
post #234

> We'll Keep Fighting. Just Not on X Yeah, somewhere where regular people that aren't terminally online won't ever have the chance to see it. This is a dumb decision. I'd very much like for open, distributed social networks to win, but that's not a reality we'll be living in anytime soon. X, for better or worse, gets you eyes, more so than any other alternative social media.

What are you talking about? X is exclusively the domain of terminally-online people.

No that's reddit, Facebook, insta and TikTok.

Re: EFF is leaving X

#866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem they're not talking about is that for all the X users they could potentially help, their messages will be actively suppressed by the platform owner. Nate Silver, famously popular (...lol) with the online left, made a post about this recently: https://www.natesilver.net/p/social-media-has-become-a-freak... EFF is, politically, left wing.

EFF used to stand for a cause that was neither left nor right.

I don't think they shifted their stance, I think the stances of the left and right shifted around them. For example I remember during Trumps first term they announced a rather sensible stance on the internet/net neutrality via an official blog post, and shortly after (maybe even the next day) it turned out that intern who wrote the piece was fired and it was removed. It's not that the stance was particularly anti-right etc, but that the positions of the right solidified more towards pro-big business rather than anti-regulation as they had previously been trying to be.

Re: EFF is leaving X

#867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story behind the numbers they present clearly demonstrates that X is censoring/shadowbanning them. Going from 600MM to 13MM impressions/yr -- losing 98% of their impressions! -- is no accident but clearly Musk's thumb on the scale. Imagine what this means if you are trying to gauge impact of a post. Remember, X is giving them zero information about who they're preventing from seeing it. Impressions is the main da…

They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky. Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming. This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.

Yes. Even though I agree with a lot of what the EFF does, this is a valid reason to be skeptical of intent.

Re: EFF is leaving X

#868
post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that trigger a red alert?

Pattern recognition - people who are on bsky are overly concerned with pronouns and extreme leftist ideology and/or extreme hate for trump. There is no actual discourse. Just a bubble where there is no tolerance for debate or difference of opinion.

>There is no actual discourse. Just a bubble where there is no tolerance for debate or difference of opinion.

That's an ironic argument from someone trying to argue for Twitter

Re: EFF is leaving X

#869
The amount and tone of discourse on this post is blowing my mind a little bit. I appreciate the criticism and concern about EFF's justification (it definitely seems a bit arbitrary) and would be a bit pissed if I was a donor. But X is so clearly an actively hostile, botted, and controlled platform. Does the hn crowd really value X so much? Or is this comment section also getting botted lol.

Re: EFF is leaving X

#870
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

freedom is intersectional. it's hard to fight for freedom while supporting those that actively limit the freedom of others, especially when the amount of impressions are no longer worth doing it for

What exactly has Elon done to limit your freedom? For me, Elon has increased my freedom because I can read about certain viewpoints that were previously censored on Twitter.

If we step back from the anecdotal arguments in this thread and look at the actual metrics and independent studies, the "pre-Musk vs. post-Musk" reality is pretty unambiguous.

Regarding government censorship, Twitter's pre-Musk transparency reports consistently showed them complying with roughly half of government takedown requests, and they frequently fought overly broad demands in court. Under Musk, data compiled by Rest of World showed that compliance jumped to over 80% (specifically 83% in his first six months), heavily favoring takedown requests from authoritarian-leaning governments.

On the topic of algorithmic amplification, y'all argue about whether boosting one side equals censoring the other. Setting the semantics aside, a 2023 Nature study found that X's "For You" algorithm demonstrably amplifies conservative content and steers users toward conservative accounts at a much higher rate than a chronological feed, while actively demoting traditional media.

As for moderation and toxicity, the claim that discussing certain topics would automatically get you banned usually ignored that it was generally the manner of the discussion (ie targeted harassment) rather than the topics themselves that triggered enforcement pre-Musk. Post-acquisition, a 2025 PLOS One audit found that measurable hate speech increased by roughly 50%, alongside a significant spike in user engagement with that specific content.

Finally, there's the issue of transparency itself. We used to get highly detailed, bi-annual reports that tracked exact volumes of rule enforcement. Those were abruptly paused, and the reports that eventually resumed are heavily stripped down, omitting comprehensive metrics on things like spam and platform manipulation.

TL;DR: The data suggests that while you are less likely to get banned by US-centric moderation for controversial cultural takes, the platform is demonstrably more compliant with state-sponsored censorship, less transparent about its operations, and algorithmically tuned to amplify right-leaning content.

Post reply on HN