Why have we let X (et al) have total control over the content posted by the users ?
Why do the users agree to the limits imposed by them and let the platform decide who gets to see the content they posted ?
Because they're offering the infrastructure. The tech for such a network is now within reach of many, but these apps are heavily dominated by network effects and that makes it impossible for competing apps to take hold.
This is negative for society.
Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
People who don't have an account are not getting vital information because the company decided to restrict access to the entire network.
This needs to be regulated somehow. At least for public services and major news outlets - as a tax for the network effect these apps benefit from.
>Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
RSS. Website. Both have been around for a long time. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Because open protocols were abandoned, because they generally lacked security, discoverability, and perhaps most significantly of all, moderation.
Even FINGER had .plan files, where you could get status updates from people.
But how are you going to query whose plans you want to read, and who is going to moderate without centralisation?
It's the moderation in particular that dooms most federalised efforts. The web itself is only really moderated through the relative lack of discoverability, with Google and hosting providers having become a form of gatekeeper to remove the very worst of the web.
Twitter in the early days took off because it did solve a technological problem of the time. You only had your SMS enabled phone, no WAP or smartphone, and wanted to provide updates. They gave you a number you could text, which would post updates. Hence the character limit ( less than the SMS limit, to leave space for your credentials ).
Plenty of alternatives exist for getting information out, people just don't know where to look for it.
That technical problem disappeared, but it had by then grown to provide a service to rapidly get updates from people, one that had a sense of authority and the moderating effect and discoverability of centralisation is impossible to ignore.
"Because open protocols were abandoned, because they generally lacked security, discoverability, and perhaps most significantly of all, moderation."
Does centralization actually result in moderation
How do we define "moderation" (cf. "curation", e.g., filtering out anything that does not draw sufficiently large audiences for advertising)
Is optimizing information retrieval for data collection, surveillance and advertising "moderation"
Section 230 was supposed to promote moderation
It did not
Instead it allowed a select few websites to grow to sizes where moderation is impractical and, ultimately, bad for "business"
Their "business" is data collection, surveillance and advertising services, not information services. Section 230 did not anticipate this "business model"
They don't work for internet users. They work for advertisers
Having used the internet prior to their existence I am not convinced that the internet is useless without them
Anyone who has made a fortune catering to internet advertisers will of course disagree
That's fine but we have to account for bias
Given what has happened to "search" perhaps more internet users will come to understand that "discoverability" is not a "solved problem" when the "solution" is a middleman that works for advertisers not end users, an easy target for governments that wish to work around limits on their ability to legally conduct data collection and surveillance
The requirement for strong moderation only exists *because* of centralization. If I'm looking at a linear feed of content, it has to be curated by someone. In the old days, content on the internet was mostly links between webpages -- the "web" if you will. If i like the content on a page, it'll link to other pages i may like, and I'm free to follow those links at will, and no third party moderation is required.
Contrast with modern social media, where everything is condensed into a single list of algorithmically curated content, and we've implicitly eroded a lot of freedom (and handed control to Big Tech)
You’re right to a point. The Internet is much older than the Web. Content on the Internet was largely FTP sites, Gopher sites, and Usenet long before the Web existed. We also had MUDs, MUSHes, MOOs, talkers, chat rooms, BBSes, and more over Telnet well before the web was widespread.
Telnet 1969, standardized 1983
FTP 1971
UUCP 1979
SMTP 1981
RSH 1983
TCP/IP v4 1984
NNTP 1986 (the successor to UUCP for newsgroups)
IRC 1988
Archie 1990 (search engine for ftp sites)
Gopher 1991
WWW 1989 first published 1991
Veronica 1992 (search engine for Gopher sites)
SSH 1995
There is a strong demand for censorship coming from not just governments and corporations but most regular people. It's not only big tech.
In the old days, most of the world wasn't online. The average internet user was a male Westerner in a tiny ideological bubble that represented not even 5% of the world's population. I fully agree with you that the old open web was better but the internet is more mainstream and monitored now and the average human isn't libertarian, to put it mildly. Corporations like X actually censor less than user moderated platforms such as Mastodon instances or most Reddit subs. Go on there to voice opinions that are unpopular with the moderators and you'll be banned in no time.
To be fair here, X also engages in moderation: I had my account on X suspended multiple times, for supposedly “posting spam”—something which never has happened with any other social media account I ever have had (and I have had them since the days of MySpace).
As far as I can tell, it’s because I posted evidence refuting the misogynistic lie widely spread on Twitter/X that 80% of the women sleep with only 20% of the men.[1] This would anger the kinds of Incel/RedPill men who were determined to believe this lie, facts be damned, and they would report my account.
Well, replies to a post also require moderation. In general, if you want people to ever see something created by people outside of their explicitly chosen friends: moderation.
(Plenty of people don't want that, or would at least prefer interacting only with their explicitly chosen friends if they were forced to choose between that and unmoderated public access. For them, group chats on Signal/WhatsApp/Telegram suffice.)
> In general, if you want people to ever see something created by people outside of their explicitly chosen friends: moderation.
I saw plenty of things pre-social-media that was created by complete strangers. These were mostly things found via search or via recommendations from people I know. Having strangers moderate (and snoop, and have AI train on) the communication I have with people I already know (or people who i meet through them...) is the problem here.
Most of the forums I participated in, in the past, ended up dying because of a very persistent troll or two. Some of them I knew in person. They were just so arrogant and thought they were doing the right thing. The communities died. A healthy community gives everyone the chance to speak. In person, that's often done subtly by moderators.
Fair enough, my claim about ever seeing something by someone you don't know is well countered by your search example. (I think recommendations from people you know is technically another example of that, but not in the sense I intended.)
But I think the case of replies stands. How can replies on a post be handled without moderation, without either showing arbitrarily horrible things to people or restricting to showing replies from explicitly designated friends?
Open protocols always end up with a "backend engineer doing frontend" situation. Which is okay if end users are other engineers, but not okay when end user is my mom.
Did websites and RSS stop working and I missed it? With more people doing AI searches a website is even more viable now, it's better for AI scraping than x.com.
It's 100% the endorsement I think it is, someone searching for "is there a fire near me" wants an answer. The main issue with websites (and why Twitter grew) is it became easier to colocate information and get real(ish) time updates. For sites that don't care about actual traffic being able to surface that data to AI bots is perfect. If it reinforces a loop of "oh [site] is the actual source of information" even better.
Why not? I'd much prefer if I can just send my agent to gather info among these sites than have to sign up for some Twitter clone, enable Javascript, then click around through a sea of algorithm bait.
I'm still honestly surprised that government entities didn't already solve this problem for themselves. We have means to mail, call, and even email our representatives, but technology seemingly stalled out 20 years ago and didn't keep up with the idea of having a digital forum. There are even multiple channels of verification to integrate, so such governmental forums could verify who is a constituent.
But that's not the end results. Senators have youtube channels, representative posts tweets and even tiktoks to update people, and emergency broadcasts post on Facebook. I'm not opposed to the expanded reach, but when that's their only official channel, it feels like something failed.
Recent years have only now made some non-US entities be pushed to start building away from this dependency, but it's a shame it had to get this far ingrained to begin with.
Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
It simply does not matter how big Bluesky is relative to X.
Number of users? Google play story says "10M+", same as the Bluesky app.
An app like this (broadcast, one-way, no comments, no need for moderation system because only governments get to push content) was already for the most part a piece of piss to write before LLMs came along. The hard part of it is going to be backup infrastructure, because the first two items in the list of hazards icons is "Attack on IT systems" then "Attack with nuclear weapons".
Bluesky attracted socialist progressives, furries, and kink-positive folks early on.
I'm not making any value statements, and there's nothing wrong with the userbase, but this is what dominates the feed for new users.
A lot of people are turned off by that when they see it as their first experience with the platform. Or they're actively turned away upon interaction. That's not how you build a big social network.
Mastodon is the exact same.
These platforms are also not winning people over by calling them "toots" and "skeets".
It's like Gimp refusing to adopt a Photoshop style UI for years and not changing their name.
Despite stated intentions, I think these platforms want to stay small and niche and non mainstream. If they wanted to grow big, they'd behave much differently. They'd try to get the Kardashians and would welcome posts about handbags and guns and sports.
Mastondon/the fediverse feels even worse. Super lefty, super kinky, furry etc. Super weird. Fine that people have their bubbles, but as a normal person you feel totally alienated. X became a nazi dumpsterfire.
> Despite stated intentions, I think these platforms want to stay small and niche and non mainstream.
I think that's essentially it, whether they are doing it intentionally or not.
Running a social network is like curating a party or conference. Who you do and don't let participate, and who you do and don't promote above others, is essentially the product. And that is a lot of work.
Open protocols don't solve any of these problems, and people who care about open protocols don't tend to be the same people interested in curating giant parties and conferences for a mass audience.
I found this post from Nostr. I find it a saner alternative to fediverse, particularly because the identity is just a server-free public-private key pair
But I don't know when if ever we will have a significant mass there.
> Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
Government agencies have communicated to their citizens long before twitter has existed. There's a myriad of ways they can use today: websites (with or without RSS), email newsletters, text updates, other social networks (bluesky, threads, etc).
Choosing to give critical updates only on Twitter is definitely a choice and they are deliberately ignoring a very large segment of their population that doesn't have a twitter account.
I believe that sentiment started to die out around the time people realized a Nazi gained control over the world's centralized communication hub. Whether that says more about the communication, the nazi, or the people is a question for the ages.
I don't believe updates on X is an exclusive channel for vital alerts in Spain.
This just doesn't make any sense, maybe what they are posting on X is just some typical SMM slop.
To send nation-wide or localised alerts for forest fires, floods or natural disasters, Spain seems to be using an entirely different system called ES-Alert via cellular broadcast technology which makes a lot of sense.
The competing app is e-mail. You can subscribe to important information by e-mail and send out important information to mailing lists.
> This needs to be regulated somehow.
Of course, this is HN so regulation is always the solution to all problems. Instead of making the people who are responsible for doing stuff and are getting paid for it get off their asses. They can easily post updates on government alert websites, on e-mail lists, and on social media and everywhere else to get the attention of the public.
>Why have we let X (et al) have total control over the content posted by the users ?
Because it is a private enterprise that you signed up for. You don't have a right to Twitter. You don't have a right to Facebook. If you don't like it, leave. The entitlement is massive here. These sites are poison in so many ways. Stop feeding the beast.
But I do have the right to the public information posted by people who intend it to be public information.
They're not posting 'on X', they're posting to the public and the only reason they do it on X is because there are no alternatives due to the network effect intrinsic for such services.
The 'network effect' part needs to be defined and taken into account by regulators and then regulate the companies such that they make the information available to the public if the poster intends so.
It's not public. It's on Twitters private servers. And the people who posted it agreed to the terms. You have no right to any of this and you know it. You just want to have a right to it.
Regulation over communication channels is not only common through the ages, but expected and needed. There may not be literal landlines to worry about in the modern age, but the general idea of communication being an important medium that shouldn't be squandered by competition remains.
I prefer everyone to simply leave Twitter and to let it crash and burn, but I see the arguments to have stronger regulations on channels central enough for governmental entities to be using it as a communication hub.
Multiple government agencies have a gap in capability. Larger government body chooses to leverage a popular (private) company Z solution over trying to develop an internal system. This is often because it's already been done in smaller jurisdictions. Z becomes head of agency/regulatory capture cartel. Z abuses the position to curtail the government actions/enable further corruption/abuse.
what I like about xcancel is that it allows me to read but protects me from giving in to the temptation of wasting time by engaging in fruitless discussions. same problem with reddit. funny thing is that my current account just got permanently banned due to ban evasion ... that's fantastic as I can still join and read subs but I cannot post or comment.
Twitter has gone from relatively open to instagram / facebook level of closedness where I can't even share a video with my friends because it asks them to log in. I had to rely on nitter and xcancel for that... Now that no longer works either
I have one niche that I use twitter for. If it wasn't for that - would have deleted my account long time ago. Things like this push me towards that direction, though.
I actually paid for their dumb monthly subscription only so that I could download videos within the app to share with my friends who don't use X. Only after paying did I realize that by "download videos" it means "cache videos locally inside the app for offline playback". It still would not allow me to save the video to my local device. Misleading, tacky, possibly even desparate.
Just go ahead and quit! I had a niche use case for FB, but I decided to quit nevertheless because I didn't want to support the platform anymore. Today I don't miss it a single bit. (I never had a Twitter account in the first place.)
I know it is Meta-owned and is just as algorithmic, but Threads is a breath of fresh air in terms of access - the website is pratically the same in terms of UX as the app, and it does not require an account to browse at all. Just thought it'd be worth mentioning.
Not just hard, but expensive as well. That's where the net really falls down. It's trivial to reach an audience of millions with text, but when you move to audio the data transfer starts to balloon, and if you're serving video it jumps to a whole new level of insanity. And then you have to think about the cost of the infrastructure, whether you're buying it outright or renting it from the likes of AWS, Google, or Akamai.
There are many already. The code is not why people use those sites. In the case of Meta specifically, it's basically in spite of the user-hostile, garbage code.
The network effect / entrenchment means that any replacement has to be massively better in every dimension to have a chance. Otherwise people just stick to what they know, and then other people stick to it because the other people do. And so on.
I personally think Musk is a garbage-tier human who represents everything wrong with culture wars, and his brain is long blasted into a mush of worthless racist noise and stupidity by drug abuse, so I deleted my X account. Loads of others are too cowardly/selfish to do so.
I believe Musk might be a decent person. He is obviously smart, but perhaps he fears foreigners too much.
X is decent for getting the latest news. The comment sections are often filled with garbage, even more so than Reddit. Ads are hard to distinguish from normal posts. There is a lot of bots in the comments.
People really do not want to give up the reach once they have tasted it.
It’s a shame: I remember when people would be so excited to get 100 strangers visiting their blogs but in a month, but now someone blogging for an audience like that would seem a little crazy, maybe paradoxically even overly grandiose.
Also, the harm from using X is complex. It basically comes from endorsing the site and encouraging other people to come there where they’ll be exposed to a cesspit of bigotry and right-wing ideas. It’s easy to tell yourself that what you’re doing there outweighs the cons, and that other sites are just as bad, etc.
I'm sure this also ends the Safe Harbor protection they've enjoyed, then, if they're going to be in the business of dictating what content can be seen and where.
An anonymous group of devs should host the source on Radicle (over Tor) and the app itself on an onion site. Bonus, it may discourage some scrapers who can’t be bothered with setting up a Tor gateway.
If the operators are in the US, they probably don't want to risk it if they were anything less than very careful in not having their personal info attached to any of the data.
I've always found it baffling that more projects by folks that disagree with copyright, access controls, etc aren't hosted in places where the cease and desist won't work.
It's like, you're doing something to annoy a large company with lots of legal resources, and you host everything in the US? Why?
Because the US is the center of the tech world. The default AWS region is in the us. All large tech companies are in the us. If you use any cloud provider the default and cheapest region is in the us and so on. Everything tech is in English and the largest English speaking country is the us.
I use Nitter/Xcancel entirely because I don't have an account, and Twitter is now unusable without one. There's still content of some value there. People still link to it and now I can't read what they shared with me.
"Elites" of both left and right stay because no matter how much they hate Elon they still need to be in the same country club with other elites. That always takes precedence.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it's time to stop giving any sort of traffic to the CSAM generator website operated by the guy who quotes the Turner Diaries, agrees with antisemitic tweets, and throws Nazi salutes at the inauguration.
If you were using these proxies, just move on. If you still have a Twitter account, well... C'mon, champ. Today's the day. Time to delete your account.
Why have we let X (et al) have total control over the content posted by the users ?
Why do the users agree to the limits imposed by them and let the platform decide who gets to see the content they posted ?
Because they're offering the infrastructure. The tech for such a network is now within reach of many, but these apps are heavily dominated by network effects and that makes it impossible for competing apps to take hold.
This is negative for society.
Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
People who don't have an account are not getting vital information because the company decided to restrict access to the entire network.
This needs to be regulated somehow. At least for public services and major news outlets - as a tax for the network effect these apps benefit from.
>Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
RSS. Website. Both have been around for a long time. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
> RSS. Website. Both have been around for a long time. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
A "foo-announce@" or "foo-alerts@" mailing list.
Acquire and extinguish with google mailing lists and RSS
No one spends their time on websites.
And yet here we are
There are people still using IRC, but the popularity of Discord can't be denied.
Because open protocols were abandoned, because they generally lacked security, discoverability, and perhaps most significantly of all, moderation.
Even FINGER had .plan files, where you could get status updates from people.
But how are you going to query whose plans you want to read, and who is going to moderate without centralisation?
It's the moderation in particular that dooms most federalised efforts. The web itself is only really moderated through the relative lack of discoverability, with Google and hosting providers having become a form of gatekeeper to remove the very worst of the web.
Twitter in the early days took off because it did solve a technological problem of the time. You only had your SMS enabled phone, no WAP or smartphone, and wanted to provide updates. They gave you a number you could text, which would post updates. Hence the character limit ( less than the SMS limit, to leave space for your credentials ).
Plenty of alternatives exist for getting information out, people just don't know where to look for it.
That technical problem disappeared, but it had by then grown to provide a service to rapidly get updates from people, one that had a sense of authority and the moderating effect and discoverability of centralisation is impossible to ignore.
"Because open protocols were abandoned, because they generally lacked security, discoverability, and perhaps most significantly of all, moderation."
Does centralization actually result in moderation
How do we define "moderation" (cf. "curation", e.g., filtering out anything that does not draw sufficiently large audiences for advertising)
Is optimizing information retrieval for data collection, surveillance and advertising "moderation"
Section 230 was supposed to promote moderation
It did not
Instead it allowed a select few websites to grow to sizes where moderation is impractical and, ultimately, bad for "business"
Their "business" is data collection, surveillance and advertising services, not information services. Section 230 did not anticipate this "business model"
They don't work for internet users. They work for advertisers
Having used the internet prior to their existence I am not convinced that the internet is useless without them
Anyone who has made a fortune catering to internet advertisers will of course disagree
That's fine but we have to account for bias
Given what has happened to "search" perhaps more internet users will come to understand that "discoverability" is not a "solved problem" when the "solution" is a middleman that works for advertisers not end users, an easy target for governments that wish to work around limits on their ability to legally conduct data collection and surveillance
The requirement for strong moderation only exists *because* of centralization. If I'm looking at a linear feed of content, it has to be curated by someone. In the old days, content on the internet was mostly links between webpages -- the "web" if you will. If i like the content on a page, it'll link to other pages i may like, and I'm free to follow those links at will, and no third party moderation is required.
Contrast with modern social media, where everything is condensed into a single list of algorithmically curated content, and we've implicitly eroded a lot of freedom (and handed control to Big Tech)
All this to say: bring back webrings.
You’re right to a point. The Internet is much older than the Web. Content on the Internet was largely FTP sites, Gopher sites, and Usenet long before the Web existed. We also had MUDs, MUSHes, MOOs, talkers, chat rooms, BBSes, and more over Telnet well before the web was widespread.
There is a strong demand for censorship coming from not just governments and corporations but most regular people. It's not only big tech.
In the old days, most of the world wasn't online. The average internet user was a male Westerner in a tiny ideological bubble that represented not even 5% of the world's population. I fully agree with you that the old open web was better but the internet is more mainstream and monitored now and the average human isn't libertarian, to put it mildly. Corporations like X actually censor less than user moderated platforms such as Mastodon instances or most Reddit subs. Go on there to voice opinions that are unpopular with the moderators and you'll be banned in no time.
It's Eternal September.
To be fair here, X also engages in moderation: I had my account on X suspended multiple times, for supposedly “posting spam”—something which never has happened with any other social media account I ever have had (and I have had them since the days of MySpace).
As far as I can tell, it’s because I posted evidence refuting the misogynistic lie widely spread on Twitter/X that 80% of the women sleep with only 20% of the men.[1] This would anger the kinds of Incel/RedPill men who were determined to believe this lie, facts be damned, and they would report my account.
[1] I detail how this is a lie at https://samboy.github.io/blog/80-20-myth.html
Well, replies to a post also require moderation. In general, if you want people to ever see something created by people outside of their explicitly chosen friends: moderation.
(Plenty of people don't want that, or would at least prefer interacting only with their explicitly chosen friends if they were forced to choose between that and unmoderated public access. For them, group chats on Signal/WhatsApp/Telegram suffice.)
> In general, if you want people to ever see something created by people outside of their explicitly chosen friends: moderation.
I saw plenty of things pre-social-media that was created by complete strangers. These were mostly things found via search or via recommendations from people I know. Having strangers moderate (and snoop, and have AI train on) the communication I have with people I already know (or people who i meet through them...) is the problem here.
Most of the forums I participated in, in the past, ended up dying because of a very persistent troll or two. Some of them I knew in person. They were just so arrogant and thought they were doing the right thing. The communities died. A healthy community gives everyone the chance to speak. In person, that's often done subtly by moderators.
Fair enough, my claim about ever seeing something by someone you don't know is well countered by your search example. (I think recommendations from people you know is technically another example of that, but not in the sense I intended.)
But I think the case of replies stands. How can replies on a post be handled without moderation, without either showing arbitrarily horrible things to people or restricting to showing replies from explicitly designated friends?
Open protocols always end up with a "backend engineer doing frontend" situation. Which is okay if end users are other engineers, but not okay when end user is my mom.
> are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
The fediverse is a viable alternative. But most non-tech people don't know about it.
Did websites and RSS stop working and I missed it? With more people doing AI searches a website is even more viable now, it's better for AI scraping than x.com.
Yes, the average user has either never used a website, or migrated to social media.
RSS still works. But it doesn't offer writing comments like twitter/mastodon. Depending on the use-case this might be desired though.
> a website is even more viable now, it's better for AI scraping
That's not necessarily the endorsement you think it is.
It's 100% the endorsement I think it is, someone searching for "is there a fire near me" wants an answer. The main issue with websites (and why Twitter grew) is it became easier to colocate information and get real(ish) time updates. For sites that don't care about actual traffic being able to surface that data to AI bots is perfect. If it reinforces a loop of "oh [site] is the actual source of information" even better.
Why not? I'd much prefer if I can just send my agent to gather info among these sites than have to sign up for some Twitter clone, enable Javascript, then click around through a sea of algorithm bait.
I'm still honestly surprised that government entities didn't already solve this problem for themselves. We have means to mail, call, and even email our representatives, but technology seemingly stalled out 20 years ago and didn't keep up with the idea of having a digital forum. There are even multiple channels of verification to integrate, so such governmental forums could verify who is a constituent.
But that's not the end results. Senators have youtube channels, representative posts tweets and even tiktoks to update people, and emergency broadcasts post on Facebook. I'm not opposed to the expanded reach, but when that's their only official channel, it feels like something failed.
Recent years have only now made some non-US entities be pushed to start building away from this dependency, but it's a shame it had to get this far ingrained to begin with.
And it has much less users, I would say its max 1-5% of X users.
In the context of:
It simply does not matter how big Bluesky is relative to X.For comparison, I have NINA installed on my phone, a German government app for exactly this category: https://www.bbk.bund.de/DE/Warnung-Vorsorge/Warn-App-NINA/wa...
Number of users? Google play story says "10M+", same as the Bluesky app.
An app like this (broadcast, one-way, no comments, no need for moderation system because only governments get to push content) was already for the most part a piece of piss to write before LLMs came along. The hard part of it is going to be backup infrastructure, because the first two items in the list of hazards icons is "Attack on IT systems" then "Attack with nuclear weapons".
That doesn't mean that it's not viable for posting public announcements
> The fediverse is a viable alternative
Bluesky attracted socialist progressives, furries, and kink-positive folks early on.
I'm not making any value statements, and there's nothing wrong with the userbase, but this is what dominates the feed for new users.
A lot of people are turned off by that when they see it as their first experience with the platform. Or they're actively turned away upon interaction. That's not how you build a big social network.
Mastodon is the exact same.
These platforms are also not winning people over by calling them "toots" and "skeets".
It's like Gimp refusing to adopt a Photoshop style UI for years and not changing their name.
Despite stated intentions, I think these platforms want to stay small and niche and non mainstream. If they wanted to grow big, they'd behave much differently. They'd try to get the Kardashians and would welcome posts about handbags and guns and sports.
Mastondon/the fediverse feels even worse. Super lefty, super kinky, furry etc. Super weird. Fine that people have their bubbles, but as a normal person you feel totally alienated. X became a nazi dumpsterfire.
> Despite stated intentions, I think these platforms want to stay small and niche and non mainstream.
I think that's essentially it, whether they are doing it intentionally or not.
Running a social network is like curating a party or conference. Who you do and don't let participate, and who you do and don't promote above others, is essentially the product. And that is a lot of work.
Open protocols don't solve any of these problems, and people who care about open protocols don't tend to be the same people interested in curating giant parties and conferences for a mass audience.
Is that not precisely how Twitter built their original social network...?
You're right
I'd say Mastodon at this point is mostly people talking in a vacuum (even more than BlueSky)
No mainstream discussion or debate comes from Mastodon, you don't see screenshots around (and you do see skeets around)
As much as SpaceXAi lost audience, there's a lot of discussion still going around there
Because it’s either this or tax payers money and corruption. Maintaining infrastructure and human labour is not free.
I found this post from Nostr. I find it a saner alternative to fediverse, particularly because the identity is just a server-free public-private key pair
But I don't know when if ever we will have a significant mass there.
Hacker News 100 on Nostr: https://njump.to/nprofile1qqsfexztjz4sq05j972pv5h3s9w0gaqvay...
It's time to repost content on bluesky
> Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.
Government agencies have communicated to their citizens long before twitter has existed. There's a myriad of ways they can use today: websites (with or without RSS), email newsletters, text updates, other social networks (bluesky, threads, etc).
Choosing to give critical updates only on Twitter is definitely a choice and they are deliberately ignoring a very large segment of their population that doesn't have a twitter account.
Finally some variety by those who want to take over via social control-cults. It used to be all about protecting the children.
Whatever happened to "Twitter can do what it wants, it's a private platform"?
Have you ever heard of the Goomba fallacy?
I believe that sentiment started to die out around the time people realized a Nazi gained control over the world's centralized communication hub. Whether that says more about the communication, the nazi, or the people is a question for the ages.
I don't believe updates on X is an exclusive channel for vital alerts in Spain.
This just doesn't make any sense, maybe what they are posting on X is just some typical SMM slop.
To send nation-wide or localised alerts for forest fires, floods or natural disasters, Spain seems to be using an entirely different system called ES-Alert via cellular broadcast technology which makes a lot of sense.
The competing app is e-mail. You can subscribe to important information by e-mail and send out important information to mailing lists.
> This needs to be regulated somehow.
Of course, this is HN so regulation is always the solution to all problems. Instead of making the people who are responsible for doing stuff and are getting paid for it get off their asses. They can easily post updates on government alert websites, on e-mail lists, and on social media and everywhere else to get the attention of the public.
> Why have we let X (et al) have total control over the content posted by the users ?
Because that's not what happened.
Why have users given control over their content to X?
>Why have we let X (et al) have total control over the content posted by the users ?
Because it is a private enterprise that you signed up for. You don't have a right to Twitter. You don't have a right to Facebook. If you don't like it, leave. The entitlement is massive here. These sites are poison in so many ways. Stop feeding the beast.
Of course I don't have a right to Twitter.
But I do have the right to the public information posted by people who intend it to be public information.
They're not posting 'on X', they're posting to the public and the only reason they do it on X is because there are no alternatives due to the network effect intrinsic for such services.
The 'network effect' part needs to be defined and taken into account by regulators and then regulate the companies such that they make the information available to the public if the poster intends so.
It's not public. It's on Twitters private servers. And the people who posted it agreed to the terms. You have no right to any of this and you know it. You just want to have a right to it.
>You don't have a right to Twitter.
Regulation over communication channels is not only common through the ages, but expected and needed. There may not be literal landlines to worry about in the modern age, but the general idea of communication being an important medium that shouldn't be squandered by competition remains.
I prefer everyone to simply leave Twitter and to let it crash and burn, but I see the arguments to have stronger regulations on channels central enough for governmental entities to be using it as a communication hub.
This pattern is exceedingly common:
Multiple government agencies have a gap in capability. Larger government body chooses to leverage a popular (private) company Z solution over trying to develop an internal system. This is often because it's already been done in smaller jurisdictions. Z becomes head of agency/regulatory capture cartel. Z abuses the position to curtail the government actions/enable further corruption/abuse.
Nitter and Xcancel should just announce that they’re training an LLM. Seems to be a get-out-of-scrape free card these days.
Presumably you also need a billion dollar team of lawyers to use that card...
what I like about xcancel is that it allows me to read but protects me from giving in to the temptation of wasting time by engaging in fruitless discussions. same problem with reddit. funny thing is that my current account just got permanently banned due to ban evasion ... that's fantastic as I can still join and read subs but I cannot post or comment.
Twitter has gone from relatively open to instagram / facebook level of closedness where I can't even share a video with my friends because it asks them to log in. I had to rely on nitter and xcancel for that... Now that no longer works either
I have one niche that I use twitter for. If it wasn't for that - would have deleted my account long time ago. Things like this push me towards that direction, though.
I actually paid for their dumb monthly subscription only so that I could download videos within the app to share with my friends who don't use X. Only after paying did I realize that by "download videos" it means "cache videos locally inside the app for offline playback". It still would not allow me to save the video to my local device. Misleading, tacky, possibly even desparate.
Just go ahead and quit! I had a niche use case for FB, but I decided to quit nevertheless because I didn't want to support the platform anymore. Today I don't miss it a single bit. (I never had a Twitter account in the first place.)
I know it is Meta-owned and is just as algorithmic, but Threads is a breath of fresh air in terms of access - the website is pratically the same in terms of UX as the app, and it does not require an account to browse at all. Just thought it'd be worth mentioning.
I assume only because Meta have forgotten about it or haven't got around to closing it down yet.
You gotta build the garden before you build the walls.
It's glorious. We no longer have to stumble into a blog post split into dozens of tweets.
Someone should be putting AI to the test and make it walk the talk by making a viable alternative to Facebook/Twitter etc :)
It’s a trivial project, it’s babbys first crud app. Getting everyone to use it is the hard part. There are already great alternatives that show this.
Then scaling and paying for it is the hard part.
Not just hard, but expensive as well. That's where the net really falls down. It's trivial to reach an audience of millions with text, but when you move to audio the data transfer starts to balloon, and if you're serving video it jumps to a whole new level of insanity. And then you have to think about the cost of the infrastructure, whether you're buying it outright or renting it from the likes of AWS, Google, or Akamai.
this one :thumb-up
There are many already. The code is not why people use those sites. In the case of Meta specifically, it's basically in spite of the user-hostile, garbage code.
The network effect / entrenchment means that any replacement has to be massively better in every dimension to have a chance. Otherwise people just stick to what they know, and then other people stick to it because the other people do. And so on.
I personally think Musk is a garbage-tier human who represents everything wrong with culture wars, and his brain is long blasted into a mush of worthless racist noise and stupidity by drug abuse, so I deleted my X account. Loads of others are too cowardly/selfish to do so.
Or they just disagree with you.
I believe Musk might be a decent person. He is obviously smart, but perhaps he fears foreigners too much.
X is decent for getting the latest news. The comment sections are often filled with garbage, even more so than Reddit. Ads are hard to distinguish from normal posts. There is a lot of bots in the comments.
I think people try alternatives, turns out to be a ghost town, then they just go back.
And that's the power of network effects. Popularity because it's popular is a hard loop to break.
People really do not want to give up the reach once they have tasted it.
It’s a shame: I remember when people would be so excited to get 100 strangers visiting their blogs but in a month, but now someone blogging for an audience like that would seem a little crazy, maybe paradoxically even overly grandiose.
Also, the harm from using X is complex. It basically comes from endorsing the site and encouraging other people to come there where they’ll be exposed to a cesspit of bigotry and right-wing ideas. It’s easy to tell yourself that what you’re doing there outweighs the cons, and that other sites are just as bad, etc.
I dont understand how come there are still people who use the garbage website named X/Twitter.
I'm sure this also ends the Safe Harbor protection they've enjoyed, then, if they're going to be in the business of dictating what content can be seen and where.
So where are the alternatives popping up?
Any ideas for a decentralized version of these services? Maybe something tied into the fediverse?
It's that exactly what Mastodon already is?
https://mastodon.social
that is what bsky and other twitter-like platforms purport to be
how well they hold up under stress of bad actors/govts remains to be seen
no i mean a replacement for nitter and xcancel
there's still a lot of info you can only find on twitter
https://sr.ht/~cloutier/dotmakeup/
thank you kind stranger
Repost it on the fediverse
Bluesky?
who cares about c&d? just host it outside of us
Apparently meta can still sue foreign individuals in California
An anonymous group of devs should host the source on Radicle (over Tor) and the app itself on an onion site. Bonus, it may discourage some scrapers who can’t be bothered with setting up a Tor gateway.
If the operators are in the US, they probably don't want to risk it if they were anything less than very careful in not having their personal info attached to any of the data.
I've always found it baffling that more projects by folks that disagree with copyright, access controls, etc aren't hosted in places where the cease and desist won't work.
It's like, you're doing something to annoy a large company with lots of legal resources, and you host everything in the US? Why?
Because the US is the center of the tech world. The default AWS region is in the us. All large tech companies are in the us. If you use any cloud provider the default and cheapest region is in the us and so on. Everything tech is in English and the largest English speaking country is the us.
Still on front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49437283 (nearly 900 comments)
Ripping off the plaster moment? One can only hope.
Why are people still using X is the real question? STOP USING THIS THING for hundreds of reasons, including this.
these things have to be operated from Russia or some country that has total independence from US legal system.
That's it for me. No more twitter.
Elmo really has ruined it.
I don't understand, is people still using it?
Once Elonified and walled, was already a clear bye bye years ago.
why there would be still the need to have an account and post stuff there?
boycott is the answer.
loosing and having few users is the biggest pain, let them drain into the void.
I use Nitter/Xcancel entirely because I don't have an account, and Twitter is now unusable without one. There's still content of some value there. People still link to it and now I can't read what they shared with me.
To be honest it was quite closed as well before he bought it.
Before AI or whatever reason for being closed again he actually opened it back.
I wish for definitelynotnitter.net, where people just copy paste from accounts they follow and otherwise non-interactive.
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49437283
That's how each of your cat-and-mouse games end, right?
I mean, even the name already is the perfect symbol of what goes wrong in people's brains, right?
Xcancel should be about cancelling X. Not about adding another pipe to it. ;)
But yeah, people will never become smarter, I guess... Jusz their glasses do.
Twitter is just bots and nazis today, not really worth trying to save
"Elites" of both left and right stay because no matter how much they hate Elon they still need to be in the same country club with other elites. That always takes precedence.
Remember the uniparty.
Or because the masses of normies haven't left it and presenters want eyeballs.
"SpaceX takes down nitter"
Maybe it's just me, but I think it's time to stop giving any sort of traffic to the CSAM generator website operated by the guy who quotes the Turner Diaries, agrees with antisemitic tweets, and throws Nazi salutes at the inauguration.
If you were using these proxies, just move on. If you still have a Twitter account, well... C'mon, champ. Today's the day. Time to delete your account.