Crossposting here as I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom

  • INeedMana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t know

    Wouldn’t that enable an angle of “martyr for freedom of speech”?

    And while I agree that it stopped being what it was and we can’t rely on it anymore, wouldn’t that separate EU from the rest of the world given current market share?

    In my opinion: abandon - yes. Ban - no

    • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Abandon would be the best approach. A ban would just make people want to use it more.

      When twitter (now formally know as “X”) was first a thing, the only reason I joined was because private business, city services, and news agencies became a little easier to follow in one unified location. It also made it easier to reach them with quick tweets.

      Maybe the solution is to put a restriction on business, news agencies, and government services from using it?

      • INeedMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        29 days ago

        Maybe the solution is to put a restriction on business, news agencies, and government services from using it?

        But that opens another can of worms. A precedence for a governing body to say which platforms can be used for reaching your audience. I’m afraid the change will have to come from the bottom

        If anything, I’d phrase it “public service messaging has to operate on platforms which don’t require an account to read”. But that doesn’t solve the problem of general culture on the service

    • sleen@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Initially thought the post was an attempt on a joke. But yes, what would banning prove?

      X might be a threat to privacy and freedom but doesn’t Facebook, Microsoft and others do the same. It looks like a poorly developed plan.

      • sibachian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        30 days ago

        in my opinion facebook and microsoft are worse because you can’t optionally avoid them. no matter what you do, you’re still paying for microsoft products through your taxes with money that should go into domestic development. facebook is so insideous that in some countries it is the de-facto internet (because it’s free to use without a paid internet plan/subscription); all hobby communities that i’m aware of now exclusively live on facebook, and forget your grandma having any other means of contact than through facebook messenger and certain companies and services offer facebook messenger only live support. and as a business owner? you don’t have a choice on the matter, facebook (and google) is the only means to advertise nowadays that have actual measurable results on the campaign budget.

        twitter? unless you’re a creative or a connoisseur of creatives, it actually has a lot less relevance than the current drama suggests, otherwise the big alternative platforms wouldn’t have actual relevance and upwards mobility, which they currently do.

    • .Donuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Wouldn’t that enable an angle of “martyr for freedom of speech”?

      Could you elaborate on this angle? I’m not very well versed in the rights of companies operating in the EU, but I’m unsure “freedom of speech” is one of them.

      Edit: I did find information about how social media needs to help us protect freedom of speech for all of their users. Currently, X is doing the opposite it seems

      • INeedMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Could you elaborate on this angle? I’m not very well versed in the rights of companies operating in the EU, but I’m unsure “freedom of speech” is one of them.

        I rather mean “political discourse”

        There was Twitter. Apart from advertising, the very good thing it brought was free access to information. But not only getting it, also sharing. So we knew about for example Arab Spring or Umbrella protests and more or less what is going on, before news decided to tell us and how to tell us

        Then came Musk, all in white, saying that moderation on Twitter is biased and he’s going to bring it more freedom of speech

        Some time passes and let’s say that now EU does ban X. What’s the next logical thing he’ll say?

        I think it might be something like “see? EU banned X because they didn’t like the truth. For the truth, come to me”. I’m afraid that banning would rather give him power and echo chamber, rather than fixing what is going on

    • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      In my opinion: abandon - yes. Ban - no

      Perhaps it is time to bring this old post of mine back from the dead? I argue that we have to start a war of attrition on mainstream platforms.

      • INeedMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        I’m not against this angle. But IMO evangelization and conversions only really worked when backed by the state

        My approach is calmly keep using free platforms, keep degoogling, when sharing information, share the links from those free platforms, so it keeps pinging in general consciousness that these exist. So the next time everyone does suprised pikachu face to what extent our data is used against us, you don’t have to say “see? I told you”. They come to you asking how to do this, what are the limitations and realities of getting free etc

        But, of course, as with everything, diversity is a strength. Some of us should fight, some of us stay calm and keep going on
        I think