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,”

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    If someone is still questioning if they should be on Twitter, then they don’t know enough about what’s going on to speak about why people shouldnt still be using it.

    It’s not exactly complicated.

    • Womble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      4 months ago

      Have you considered that maybe other people have different priorities, needs and desires to you, and that for people coming around to your point of view you should encourage them rather than castigate them for taking too long?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        If all you want is a participation trophy and no one to tell you how to do better, sure.

        I don’t see the point in that, but I do see a point to honest feedback.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t give a fuck about the opinions of people with evil priorities. They’re wrong and need to lose, end of!

        Morality is not relative.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Morality is definitely relative, there’s just some common overlaps

          Sometimes the answer is just the same no matter what (coherent) moral framework you examine it through… Sometimes it’s just that simple