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 # 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.
I’d prefer to see people screenshot/crop and also link to an archived version or a frontend.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.
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?
Is there a technicality for xcancel.com?
There should be a bot that converts the links like there is for youtube.
Yes. Ban it. No more traffic to big social media. If something is newsworthy there will be a blog post about it.
Would it be possible to automatically change Twitter links posted and substitute them with a mirror site?
Yes.
Automatically replace them with xcancel links or something.
Yes… we should probably ban Xitter links… but maybe allow other front ends? You know, because screenshots can be forged.
TL;DR: Censorship and content manipulation are real problems, as shown with Instagram’s hashtag blocking and how platforms like Twitter (now X) are used to amplify harmful ideologies. It’s a growing concern how these platforms are becoming vehicles for dangerous misinformation, hate speech, and even political manipulation—all while being run by billionaires with their own agendas.
Yes, and I’ll explain why (content warning: US politics but the truth about the billionaire-controlled racist media is political)
With the three richest men on EARTH, “Zuckerberg, Bezos and Musk seated in front of cabinet picks” (Guardian) at the inauguration, it’s clear who’s really in control. We must stay vigilant and communicate on decentralized, open-source, or encrypted channels. Use lemmy, mastodon, and bluesky for public communication and Signal for private communication. Edit Wikipedia. Donate if you can. Be aware who controls what media, and don’t encourage them or feed into it: Twitter (Musk), Facebook (Zuck), Instagram (Zuck), the Washington Post (Bezos).
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/instagram-democrat-hashtags-blocked-search
Several Instagram users have reported seeing hashtags such as “#democrat,” “republicans,” “#jan6th” and “#johnoliver” being blocked, accompanied by a message stating, “We’ve hidden these results.” For example, if a user searches “jan6th,” a popup states that the results had been hidden as they “may contain sensitive content.” A “learn more” link takes a user to Instagram’s generic sensitive content help page. Between the lines: Trump, who had once threatened Zuckerberg with life in prison, took credit earlier this month for the changes in Facebook’s content moderation rules. “Probably,” Trump said when asked if Zuckerberg is “directly responding to the threats you’ve made to him in the past.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/04/media/washington-post-cartoonist-ann-telnaes-resigns-bezos/index.html
Talnaes, who had been with The Post since 2008, wrote in a Substack post announcing her resignation that, “I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations—and some differences—about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at. Until now.” The cartoon depicted Bezos, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI chief Sam Altman on their knees, handing over bags of cash to a statue of Trump next to a lipstick-holding Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong and bowing Mickey Mouse.
You know as well as I do what this means and why we use lemmy — "Lemmy is free, open-source software, meaning no advertising, monetizing, or venture capital, ever. "
Given that "Elon Musk agrees with antisemitic X post that claims Jews ‘push hatred’ against White people" (CNN) and trying to censor Wikipedia over his Nazi Salute (SCMP), it’s clear that the White South African is turning his personal Xwitter shitter into a tool for the billionaire class — and for unbridled racism. Under Musk, the word “cisgender” is treated as a slur, but not actual racial slurs (AP)
I’m sad to say this is no longer a “conspiracy theory” but verifiable facts about how our world works in 2025.
Yes please! We’re here to get away from centralised content.
Yes
yes
Yes and ban Meta too.
PLEASE
