A lot of subreddits are banning/proposing to ban X links in response to Führer Elon’s wonderful gesture of love and tolerance. Should this instance follow suit?
Also, Instagram/Threads/Meta links. Same question.
You must log in or register to comment.
Block them. If they have something interesting or important to say, just quote it. Don’t send them even more traffic and attention.
A quote is not a source. The news often misquotes people or takes words out of context.
A tweet should be screenshotted with the original link along with an alternate to xcancel.com.
If the tweet itself has a link or mentions something elsewhere, a link to that source should also be provided.
Sounds like a lot but anything less is misinformation, as far as I’m concerned. So much news and memes have been spread where the subject is taken out of context. Hours or days or years will go by before people come to discover the true meaning of something and by then the impression has already been made.
Are we trusting a site being run by a known white nationalist/Nazi as a news source?
Agreed. At least send the link shared to Twitter then, if there’s any. A screenshot is better than nothing.
Yes
I’d prefer to see people screenshot/crop and also link to an archived version or a frontend. These services (X, Instagram, Meta, etc.) often require you to login for a lot of things (including seeing posts) and also block VPNs.
It definitely is harmful to Lemmy’s userbase to click on these links, but I also don’t think we should create a walled garden. Users can always choose to use solutions like LibRedirect.
No. Please don’t post screenshots. Twitter is almost never the original source and if it is, it’s only one side of the story. Please consider finding an alternative source and banning Twatter entirely.
There’s always xcancel. Does that not solve most people’s concern?
It’s compatible with banning original links, and can break later
Yes.
Evidence suggests that X is a hate site run by a fascist.
Meta isn’t quite there yet, but heading in the same direction.
Regardless if he is a saint or not, it’s super centralized social media and we shouldn’t support it
Centralisation isn’t inherently bad. It has many benefits from a technical perspective. Remember that none of these social networks got popular through not offering people what they wanted, and the vast majority of people do not want biased or hate filled sites.
But centralisation does give a lot of power and influence to the few, and so far, they have all been found wanting when it comes to not being evil.
recognizing the pattern of owners/mods abusing power and no one really agreeing what exactly that entails, will always find that decentralization is the way that it has to be.
We tried centralization and doesn’t go well. The answer is not to keep trying the same thing.
We tried centralization and doesn’t go well.
Well, no. Centralised social media did, and is, doing extremely well by most metrics.
We can build our ivory towers and feel happy and safe within them, but it doesn’t change the fact that we’re not missed and the above probably like that we’re not there pointing out its flaws.
Centralised social media did, and is, doing extremely well by most metrics.
Such as censorship (everywhere). shadowbanning (X), ownership by an egomaniac slyster (X), blue badges (X), and being ganged up on (reddit). i’m ignoring platforms for addicts such as tiktok, youtube, and instagram.
Which matrix are we ignoring in order come to the conclusion legacy social media is doing well? Be specific.
we’re not missed
You are right.
At the same time, those platforms are not providing enough value for users to stick around.
Centralised social media did, and is, doing extremely well by most metrics.Such as censorship (everywhere). shadowbanning (X), ownership by an egomaniac slyster (X), blue badges (X), and being ganged up on (reddit). i’m ignoring platforms for addicts such as tiktok, youtube, and instagram.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that these large social media companies are operating for your benefit.
A strange notion to hold.
if someone chooses to be on a platform and they don’t get any benefit from it then they shouldn’t be on it.
The platform owner(s) definitely have motivations and/or an agenda. Safe to assume the owner is a stakeholder and therefore is not guaranteed to be hands off forever.
Both of these are besides the point. The question is,
why do people stay on a platform?
Yes. Just do it. We’re in consensus.
Yes please! I’d rather that platform be banned widely
I think it’s important to preserve the original source for verifiability.
Perhaps require the main link to be to a mirror or screenshot, but allow the original link in the body of the post.
Perhaps some automated conversion with a warning when posting that it does this?
Yes.
Would it be possible to automatically change Twitter links posted and substitute them with a mirror site?
Yes. Ban it. No more traffic to big social media. If something is newsworthy there will be a blog post about it.
Difficult question to answer.
- things happen on Twitter / Threads / Gab/ etc that are important/worth hearing about , or at least interesting, but
- I do not wish to send any traffic to these sites
- and definitely do not wish them making any money from my traffic
In the end I think we should not forbid or block, but be much more careful what we share from those sites. I also think it’s important - very important - to make any competing social media much more interesting to people wanting to be involved and kept up to date. How, I don’t know either but we shouldn’t be too strict on eg Bluesky, rather cooperate or something.
Nuke it from orbit.
and the only regret, there isn’t a gravestone to visit to piss on.
huuuu yeah
bring on the fireworks and lets get the show on
yes
Yes
