After seeing AOC’s post I feel Twitter should be banned. Until that happens there are things we can do that are simple and effective:
For people who have a Twitter account:
- Switch to Bluesky and make a Tweet saying you are now on Bluesky and no longer post on Twitter. Note that per Furball’s comment if you use the word Bluesky in your Tweet it will be hidden. Be sure to censor the word or use a screenshot.
- If you have no choice but to use Twitter install an adblocker such as uBlock Origin. Also review your privacy settings.
- Leave a 1 star review on the app store for the “X” (Twitter) app.
Things everyone can do even if you don’t have a Twitter account:
- Help your friends who are still on Twitter migrate away.
- Urge companies, governments, organizations, celebrities and other large accounts to make a Bluesky account and phase out the use of Twitter. They can start by posting on both to make the migration easier.
- If you’re writing an article or posting on Lemmy, Reddit or other websites prefer linking and screenshooting Twitter alternatives such as Bluesky, Mastodon and Threads instead of Twitter when possible. This is also good for your readers because Twitter makes it hard to read Tweets without logging in.
- Contact people in your government and urge Twitter be banned.
Ban Twitter? Are you serious? Which law is Twitter breaking, and how could a politician get it banned?
Can you think of any examples where a website has been banned?
Tik tok?
Literally being banned unless it is sold by the foreign company that owns it.
How much of Twitter belongs to Saudi Arabia due to their massive investment for Musk (South African) to buy it?
Pretty sure you could push the same foreign interference line.
TikTok hasn’t been banned. I live in the USA, and I can go on TikTok right now.
Brazil banned it for roughly a month earlier this year, but that was due to the company deciding to ignore the law and refusing to pay fines.
No idea about USA, but other countries could claim it’s being used to spy on their citizens, much like USA is accusing tiktok.
The other way to ask for a country wide ban is to make a very, very, very strong case for how much the disinfo spread through there is harmful for the stability of the country. Then again, you’d have to apply that to whatsapp and telegram as well, there are thousands of groups that are all about sharing rage bullshit
I don’t think the government has the power to ban twitter, and it probably shouldn’t. But individual users should stop using it.
Unfortunately, people are emotional little bags of shit and just want to see their funny memes.
This is why we can’t have nice things. Too many people are basically toddlers and cannot delay gratification.
On the other hand, the government probably could have Musk killed. That’s kind of scary and I don’t really want to have a government that would do that, but do I want that asshole to die.
Also, don’t use the word Bluesky in the Twitter post. Twitter hides post with that word
Gotta love President Musk’s brave defence of free speech just make sure you don’t want to share a link, mention any competitors, use the word cisgender, or track his private jets
Truly the freest of platforms
AOC gathered all that from a ‘peek’? Lol. She’s not a journalist with well-researched revelations. She’s a politician gathering steam to censor twitter/X contrary to your constitution. Why are people applauding this? Do you really want the govt to be the arbiter of truth?
You’ve been reported as a troll and judging by how people are reacting to your posts, I think many agree. I’m not going to remove your comment, because there is great discussion counteracting what you’re saying. I am going to ban you for a couple of days though. If you come back trolling, I’ll ban you permanently. Thanks for understanding.
Gotta say, I don’t read their posts as trolling. Perhaps some mildly trollish language in the first comment, but in the context of their further responses they do seem to have a critical but genuine and insightful perpective on the topic at hand.
Many countries around the world have been experiencing legislative overreach brought in under the guise of prohibiting racism/violence/antivax/etc, but written to effectively create a framework for suppressing any protest and discourse which any government of the day (and by extension their sponsors) can use to crack down on whatever they define as wrongthink.
That kind of predicted result strongly prompts the need to wrack our collective minds in search of a better solution, which I believe the commenter was trying to encourage.
I only banned him for a day. He can definitely have that opinion and have measured responses while not being aggressive and trying to get the other person to start arguing. I did hesitate, but like I said, it’s only for a day and I’m trying to keep the trolls from seeing this place as a fertile ground. If they’re genuine, they’ll understand.
I’m not saying there’s no misinformation on X. There’s misinfo everywhere. I’m saying AOC’s rhetoric is dangerous in using that to crack down on your constitutional rights, again. No government, elected or otherwise, can be trusted to regulate truth. The answer to ill-informed speech is more speech. A crack-down will only embolden those trying to mislead.
The answer to ill-informed speech is more speech
It’s not and due to a simple reason: people with ill intent do not play by the same rules. People throwing conspiracy theories, lies, distorted truths and all sorts of disinformation don’t care about being right, they care about reach and strong emotional responses. People that want to spread the correct information want people to know and learn. Two completely different end goals. Not only that, it takes significantly more time and energy to explain why some bullshit is bullshit, than it takes to just spread it.
Put it another way, disinformation is a machinegun and trying to fight it with more speech, like fact checking, is wearing a bulletproof vest. It’s better to make sure no shots are fired than praying it doesn’t hit an uncovered spot.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. - Sartre
The answer to ill-informed speech is more speech.
It really doesn’t feel like that is the case. It feels like the more speech we produced on the internet the more of it turned out to be bullshit. We need to turn to quality over quantity.
Where I agree with you is that this isn’t something we’d want to entrust to a government. We need non-profit news outlets that are publicly and internationally founded with transparent decision-making.
Oh look, another blanket statement that appeals to emotion without substance.
Articulate specifics on pressing issues or shut the actual fuck up. Anyone calling for silencing discussion is a coward with a weak, insecure worldview.
She’s trying to drum up support for diminishing the first amendment. Gotta come in with vague, subjective reasoning for that.
AOCia carrying water for the intelligence sector, as usual.
Good fucking luck with that lol. Being a whiny sanctimonius tyrant won’t convince anyone but the most loyal rage bait addicts.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen her say anything poignant or pick apart any specific issue - she’s always just throwing around empty platitudes that she knows a certain audience likes to hear.
President Unelect Musk is doing fine with that all on his own.
Regardless of who she is and who you think she is, the fact is she is correct in her assessment and there is a mountain of evidence to substantiate her claim, from her own country and the world over.
And this isn’t exactly rocket science. Arguing that disinformation doesn’t present a significant threat to our way of life is like arguing the world isn’t round. There isn’t really any debate on this in the scientific/expert community.
Why do people keep referring to X as Twitter?
Is getting?
Always has been, it’s just souch more visible now