Ever since Elon Musk took over Twitter, I and many others have been looking for alternatives. Who wants to share a platform with the likes of Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson?

I considered leaving Twitter as soon as Elon Musk acquired it in 2022, just not wanting to be part of a community that could be bought, least of all by a man like him – the obnoxious “long hours at a high intensity” bullying of his staff began immediately. But I’ve had some of the most interesting conversations of my life on there, both randomly, ambling about, and solicited, for stories: “Anyone got catastrophically lonely during Covid?”; “Anyone hooked up with their secondary school boy/girlfriend?” We used to call it the place where you told the truth to strangers (Facebook was where you lied to your friends), and that wide-openness was reciprocal and gorgeous.

“Twitter has broken the mould,” Mulhall says. “It’s ostensibly a mainstream platform which now has bespoke moderation policies. Elon Musk is himself inculcated with radical right politics. So it’s behaving much more like a bespoke platform, created by the far right. This marks it out significantly from any other platform. And it’s extremely toxic, an order of magnitude worse, not least because, while it still has terms of service, they’re not necessarily implementing them.”

Global civil society, though, finds it incredibly difficult to reject the free speech argument out of hand, because the alternative is so dark: that a number of billionaires – not just Musk but also Thiel with Rumble, Parler’s original backer, Rebekah Mercer (daughter of Robert Mercer, funder of Breitbart), and, indirectly, billionaire sovereign actors such as Putin – are successfully changing society, destroying the trust we have in each other and in institutions. It’s much more comfortable to think they’re doing that by accident, because they just love “free speech”, than that they’re doing that on purpose. “Part of understanding the neo-reactionary and ‘dark enlightenment’ movements, is that these individuals don’t have any interest in the continuation of the status quo,”

  • Ilandar@aussie.zoneEnglish
    15·
    3 months ago

    But we don’t need a government to step in and tell us to stop using X; we could do that on our own. Brazilians, Twitterless, have been migrating to Bluesky, which was set up in 2019 by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey. Bluesky’s Wang described on Monday “a wild ride even in the last four days. As of this morning, we’ve had nearer 2 million new users.” If we all did that (I’ve done that!), would it obliterate X’s power? Or would there just be a bifurcation, a Good Place and a Bad Place?

    Bluesky serves a similar purpose to X but is designed completely differently, as Wang describes: “No single entity has control over the platform, all the code is open-sourced, anyone can copy and paste our entire code. We can’t own your data, you can take it wherever you want. We have to win your usership through our performance or else you will leave. That’s much more like how search engines work. If you enshittify the search engine by placing ads everywhere, people will go to a different search engine.”

    The main hurdle has been that people migrate in packs and until recently weren’t migrating fast enough. If they do, and Saperia is right, Bluesky and Threads (which now has 175 million active monthly users), will ultimately supplant X. Will it be the same? It can’t be – the free-for-all of the open web, from which Twitter created its famous “town square” discursive experience (anyone could chat, and look, the Coastguard Agency and CNN were also right there) has been replaced by a social media idea Saperia calls the “dark forest” and Wang describes as “you find your people in small spaces, and work together to build an experience that you want – basic human building blocks of interaction”.

    I understand the argument that all the “good” people leaving X will only amplify the voices of the “bad” people on the platform, but alternatives like Bluesky won’t survive if no one uses them. So ultimately I would say that the more ethical choice is to leave X and support a better competitor rather than stay and prolong its legitimacy. It’s not a perfect solution and will further segment society in the short-term but I don’t see how remaining on X contributes to a better future.