Is it time to quarantine and perhaps ban Twitter? January 22, 2025 4:26 AM Subscribe
So Twitter is now exposed as being a media company that is openly run by an actual seig-heiling Nazi, who also uses Twitter to promote extremist right-wing violence in Europe and other parts of the world. I don't like the idea of shutting down lines of communication, but I am seeing other online communities blocking links to URLs published by Twitter and related properties for these actions, and I'm asking if we should show solidarity as another online community, disavowing support for Nazism by filtering out links to Twitter and connected media entities in posts and comments.
To be clear, I am not asking to debate the gestures, or the individual, his actions, or entertain the incomprehensible and obscene opinions of the ADL or other compromised political entities. I would ask politely that people who need that debate go elsewhere. I would prefer to discuss whether there are things we can and should do to target, isolate, and quarantine the media of overt Nazism and similar violent right-wing extremist movements, both to protect our community and also to send a message of solidarity with others on the Internet in the United States and across the world, people who are doing what they can to limit the influence and extent of pro-Nazi communication networks. We do this for Stormfront, for instance, and maybe it is now time to do this for Twitter.
To be clear, I am not asking to debate the gestures, or the individual, his actions, or entertain the incomprehensible and obscene opinions of the ADL or other compromised political entities. I would ask politely that people who need that debate go elsewhere. I would prefer to discuss whether there are things we can and should do to target, isolate, and quarantine the media of overt Nazism and similar violent right-wing extremist movements, both to protect our community and also to send a message of solidarity with others on the Internet in the United States and across the world, people who are doing what they can to limit the influence and extent of pro-Nazi communication networks. We do this for Stormfront, for instance, and maybe it is now time to do this for Twitter.
Mod note: So I saw this post in the queue, decided to open up Twitter and scrolled to see what it was showing me.
It wasn’t anything bad or terrible and there wasn’t anything Nazi related. I say this to point out that not everything on the platform is terrible and there are still people using it for good things. I do think it would be a mistake to completely ban the platform, while obviously removing posts or comments on MeFi that do like link to Nazi or other hateful material.
We are MetaFilter. We do not link to, endorse, or condone anything hateful, period. We will remove links or posters that do so. We’ve been doing that for close to 25 years, and we’re going to keep on doing that.
Otherwise, it's up to the community to talk about this, but just want to be clear that isn't a problem with nazi or hate related posts on MeFi.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:32 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
It wasn’t anything bad or terrible and there wasn’t anything Nazi related. I say this to point out that not everything on the platform is terrible and there are still people using it for good things. I do think it would be a mistake to completely ban the platform, while obviously removing posts or comments on MeFi that do like link to Nazi or other hateful material.
We are MetaFilter. We do not link to, endorse, or condone anything hateful, period. We will remove links or posters that do so. We’ve been doing that for close to 25 years, and we’re going to keep on doing that.
Otherwise, it's up to the community to talk about this, but just want to be clear that isn't a problem with nazi or hate related posts on MeFi.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:32 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
It wasn’t anything bad or terrible and there wasn’t anything Nazi related. I say this to point out that not everything on the platform is terrible and there are still people using it for good things. I do think it would be a mistake to completely ban the platform, while obviously removing posts or comments on MeFi that do like link to Nazi or other hateful material.
On the one hand, I see the logic in this - but on the other hand there is the "Nazi bar" argument.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:34 AM on January 22 [23 favorites]
On the one hand, I see the logic in this - but on the other hand there is the "Nazi bar" argument.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:34 AM on January 22 [23 favorites]
scrolled to see what it was showing me
I was curious after reading this, so I opened the site for the first time in awhile, and scrolling my timeline just showed me people I followed. Then I clicked on the Explore button, and the "For You" tab gave me MLB (baseball), Libs of TikTok, "End Wokeness", some account with dog pictures, a nazi named Benny Johnson, Alex Jones, and Major League Baseball (again).
That's what they've decided to promote - it's not just some neutral algorithm pulling popular accounts at random, or showing me things related to my interests.
posted by Umami Dearest at 6:08 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
I was curious after reading this, so I opened the site for the first time in awhile, and scrolling my timeline just showed me people I followed. Then I clicked on the Explore button, and the "For You" tab gave me MLB (baseball), Libs of TikTok, "End Wokeness", some account with dog pictures, a nazi named Benny Johnson, Alex Jones, and Major League Baseball (again).
That's what they've decided to promote - it's not just some neutral algorithm pulling popular accounts at random, or showing me things related to my interests.
posted by Umami Dearest at 6:08 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
Fuck Twitter. Block unless there's a compelling reason not to.
posted by Diskeater at 6:11 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 6:11 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
I don't remember seeing a link to Twitter in ages. I don't think we need to put in a rule against something unless people are actually doing it.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:26 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:26 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
It should be banned, if only to make a point. I am not a huge believer in the power of a small online community to change the world through a terms-of-service update, but this is a step that costs nothing and draws a line.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:39 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 6:39 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
I asked this a long time ago, right about when the site started blocking engagement from anyone who didn't have an account (If all I can see when clicking the link is "oops something went wrong" because I deleted my account and I am not using Chrome, what's the point of linking?)
The response at the time was "well... some people still use it. Wait and see."
We've waited. We've seen. It hasn't improved. The fascist who runs the site isn't pretending he's not a fascist any more.
We stopped allowing links to other sites in the past because they were known bad actors (LGF is the earliest one I can recall). That doesn't mean there wasn't some good buried in the dreck, it just meant that we recognized as a whole that the site was unhealthy for civil discourse.
I don't think we lose anything of value if Twitter is not linked to.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:40 AM on January 22 [7 favorites]
The response at the time was "well... some people still use it. Wait and see."
We've waited. We've seen. It hasn't improved. The fascist who runs the site isn't pretending he's not a fascist any more.
We stopped allowing links to other sites in the past because they were known bad actors (LGF is the earliest one I can recall). That doesn't mean there wasn't some good buried in the dreck, it just meant that we recognized as a whole that the site was unhealthy for civil discourse.
I don't think we lose anything of value if Twitter is not linked to.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:40 AM on January 22 [7 favorites]
Some thoughts:
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:43 AM on January 22 [32 favorites]
- Exposure to Twitter via MeFi is not gonna turn anyone here into a Nazi
- The platform is famously bad at monetizing and a link here or there on this small site is unlikely to provide any measurable income
- MeFi exists to discuss the internet and like it or not, a bunch of that is still on Twitter
- A link is not an endorsement
- We've banned (or discouraged anyway) single sources, but Twitter isn't a single source; it's a platform with tens of thousands of sources
- MeFi has an oft-noted problem with performative absolutism driving people away
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:43 AM on January 22 [32 favorites]
on the other hand there is the "Nazi bar" argument.
I would like to take this opportunity to make clear my opposition to the "Nazi bar" parable. If we were to take that story seriously, then sites like Metafilter would cease to exist, because there would be nothing left to link to. We see this in so many discussions: Can't quote the Guardian, can't quote the Times, can't quote the Post, can't quote from a Substack. Not to throw around the equally vacuous "no ethical consumption under capitalism" line, but all our media comes pre-compromised. All of it. It's all owned by billionaires, it all platforms the worst people on earth, and it's all we have, if we would like to have conversations online.
The critique, such that it is, is always one-sided. Someone will say "you shouldn't post that, it's from Twitter," but they do not share their complete media-consumption history, so you're never able to give them the same scrutiny they have given your post.
We need to be able to separate compromised platforms from compromised writing. If we want to ruthlessly scrutinize a particular argument, great, go forth and do so, it can make for enlightening conversation. But at this point in the twenty-first century, pointing to a platform and saying "it's owned by a fascist" is neither informative nor ethically useful.
posted by mittens at 6:46 AM on January 22 [30 favorites]
I would like to take this opportunity to make clear my opposition to the "Nazi bar" parable. If we were to take that story seriously, then sites like Metafilter would cease to exist, because there would be nothing left to link to. We see this in so many discussions: Can't quote the Guardian, can't quote the Times, can't quote the Post, can't quote from a Substack. Not to throw around the equally vacuous "no ethical consumption under capitalism" line, but all our media comes pre-compromised. All of it. It's all owned by billionaires, it all platforms the worst people on earth, and it's all we have, if we would like to have conversations online.
The critique, such that it is, is always one-sided. Someone will say "you shouldn't post that, it's from Twitter," but they do not share their complete media-consumption history, so you're never able to give them the same scrutiny they have given your post.
We need to be able to separate compromised platforms from compromised writing. If we want to ruthlessly scrutinize a particular argument, great, go forth and do so, it can make for enlightening conversation. But at this point in the twenty-first century, pointing to a platform and saying "it's owned by a fascist" is neither informative nor ethically useful.
posted by mittens at 6:46 AM on January 22 [30 favorites]
I think refusing to engage with widely used platforms/spaces promotes echo-chamber thinking and reduces whatever small effect our words might have on others.
posted by Mid at 6:47 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
posted by Mid at 6:47 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
DirtyOldTown: "Some thoughts:
I don't disagree. My initial ask for not linking there was due to the site literally not working for anyone without an account - I can't see value in an FPP if the main link is to a site that many MeFi users can't open. I don't think an outright ban on LINKING is worth the effort, but if the entire point of a post is a Twitter link? Comment, sure, but not for an FPP.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:48 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
- Exposure to Twitter via MeFi is not gonna turn anyone here into a Nazi
- The platform is famously bad at monetizing and a link here or there on this small site is unlikely to provide any measurable income
- MeFi exists to discuss the internet and like it or not, a bunch of that is still on Twitter
- A link is not an endorsement
- We've banned single sources before, but Twitter isn't a single source; it's a platform with tens of thousands of sources
- MeFi has an oft-noted problem with performative absolutism driving people away
I don't disagree. My initial ask for not linking there was due to the site literally not working for anyone without an account - I can't see value in an FPP if the main link is to a site that many MeFi users can't open. I don't think an outright ban on LINKING is worth the effort, but if the entire point of a post is a Twitter link? Comment, sure, but not for an FPP.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:48 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
(Bias disclaimer: I spent a lot of time with my half-Gaza, half-movies Twitter feed until the election, when I decided to get rid of everything likely to show me political news. I deleted my account and haven’t missed it.)
I oppose this idea. In terms of normalizing fascism, Twitter is far behind The New York Times. And I don’t want them banned either.
If individuals want to link shame, let them fight their own battles.
posted by Lemkin at 6:50 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I oppose this idea. In terms of normalizing fascism, Twitter is far behind The New York Times. And I don’t want them banned either.
If individuals want to link shame, let them fight their own battles.
posted by Lemkin at 6:50 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
The New York Times actively aids the US government's genocide in Palestine, are we banning that next?
posted by Space Coyote at 7:13 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 7:13 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
If people link to Twitter, then I just don't read it. (Also, I think you have to login to see stuff now anyway, so I wouldn't be able to see it.)
It can be very hard to link to sources someone won't find an issue with; I'm thinking of linking to an article about Trump blustering over Canada on the Blue but it's from Maclean's, which I acknowledge can be hit or miss with their stories. (A stopped clock, etc.) But I know other Canadians will be big mad that I might do so given that yeah, they can be shitty at times. Mainstream media is pants, y'all and I hate it too. I don't know what the right call is for a lot of media anymore.
posted by Kitteh at 7:14 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
It can be very hard to link to sources someone won't find an issue with; I'm thinking of linking to an article about Trump blustering over Canada on the Blue but it's from Maclean's, which I acknowledge can be hit or miss with their stories. (A stopped clock, etc.) But I know other Canadians will be big mad that I might do so given that yeah, they can be shitty at times. Mainstream media is pants, y'all and I hate it too. I don't know what the right call is for a lot of media anymore.
posted by Kitteh at 7:14 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
I dislike the Nazi bar argument a lot (we should ban iPhone / Mac users next!) but Elon literally Seig Heil'd at the inauguration. Fuck him, fuck Twitter.
posted by Diskeater at 7:19 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 7:19 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
I'm on team Fuck Twitter. I deleted my account last night after people were screaming at me and calling me an antisemite for saying that yes, Elon actually did give a Nazi salute. And they were not Nazis. It is just... it is lost and irredeemable.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:20 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:20 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Twitter used to be a generally useful service with remote islands of deplorables. In the last 2 years the deplorables have become the default with remote islands of useful information. Even viewing tweets from celebrities or scientists can expose you explicitly Nazi content in the replies.
I am not advocating for a blanket ban on Twitter links but I wouldn't be sad never to see one again.
posted by AndrewStephens at 7:29 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
I am not advocating for a blanket ban on Twitter links but I wouldn't be sad never to see one again.
posted by AndrewStephens at 7:29 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
(Also, I think you have to login to see stuff now anyway, so I wouldn't be able to see it.)
I believe this was one of Phony Stark’s trial balloons that rapidly deflated.
I just tried it. It showed me tweets without being signed in.
posted by Lemkin at 7:40 AM on January 22
I believe this was one of Phony Stark’s trial balloons that rapidly deflated.
I just tried it. It showed me tweets without being signed in.
posted by Lemkin at 7:40 AM on January 22
I just tried it. It showed me tweets without being signed in.
I ditched Twitter in about 2018 because it bored me, not really because of the politics of it all, and I can confirm this has always been and is still true. What you can't do as a non-user is see interactions - you can see a single linked tweet that someone posts, for instance, but you can't see replies unless someone posts them as a screenshot or from one of those services that formats them as a full story or whatever.
posted by pdb at 7:49 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I ditched Twitter in about 2018 because it bored me, not really because of the politics of it all, and I can confirm this has always been and is still true. What you can't do as a non-user is see interactions - you can see a single linked tweet that someone posts, for instance, but you can't see replies unless someone posts them as a screenshot or from one of those services that formats them as a full story or whatever.
posted by pdb at 7:49 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Not to throw around the equally vacuous "no ethical consumption under capitalism" line, but all our media comes pre-compromised. All of it.
Not least because most if not all of it is delivered to us on servers run by Amazon Web Services, which is a thing people either do not realize, or do not remember, when they're talking about unsubscribing from Prime as a way of "hurting" Jeff Bezos.
I'm not saying protest isn't valid. It is. And it's needed. It's just...the scope of these people is so big. They're infrastructure.
posted by pdb at 7:53 AM on January 22 [7 favorites]
Not least because most if not all of it is delivered to us on servers run by Amazon Web Services, which is a thing people either do not realize, or do not remember, when they're talking about unsubscribing from Prime as a way of "hurting" Jeff Bezos.
I'm not saying protest isn't valid. It is. And it's needed. It's just...the scope of these people is so big. They're infrastructure.
posted by pdb at 7:53 AM on January 22 [7 favorites]
I will sometimes link to Twitter threads/posts in comments - generally as a courtesy I will put in brackets (Twitter link) in case people don't want to go to Twitter. I am mostly just a consumer of Twitter, and I have it set up so I just see journalists, academics, etc. who I consider to be trustworthy sources of information and analysis. I am not just linking to randos. But, if people are getting their information from randos on Twitter, I'd actually still prefer that they link to them because then I can better evaluate what someone is saying. I'd say it's good people share whatever their sources for their opinions are, rather than hide them. I don't think I've ever seen someone make a FFP with just a link to Twitter - I'd say that could be banned on the basis that Twitter links are usually pretty thin.
posted by coffeecat at 8:06 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 8:06 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
A lot of the arguments in favour of allowing links to twitter absolutely apply to linking to e.g. the stormfront forums or 4chan.
posted by Dysk at 8:46 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:46 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
as some added context, for example, a whole lot of big subreddits are discussing and/or implementing exactly this the past two days. of particular note to me are a lot of the big sports subs where historically a tweet would be posted about or by some sports-important person, for example a post-event trash-talk or a "i can't say this while i'm on the podium but fuck #EventSponsor" or breaking injury news or whatever, which would generate a lot of discussion, and ultimately make up a significant portion of that sub's content around events. so this isn't just us here on MeFi considering this idea right now.
i bring this up not as an argument for or against the idea, only to say this topic is currently on a lot of people's minds.
posted by glonous keming at 8:53 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
i bring this up not as an argument for or against the idea, only to say this topic is currently on a lot of people's minds.
posted by glonous keming at 8:53 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
A lot of the arguments in favour of allowing links to twitter absolutely apply to linking to e.g. the stormfront forums or 4chan.
No one would suggest that there is a wealth of stuff on Stormfront or 4chan that is worth discussing, not offensive, and not found anywhere else.
So that comparison falls apart pretty quickly, pretty entirely.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:57 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
No one would suggest that there is a wealth of stuff on Stormfront or 4chan that is worth discussing, not offensive, and not found anywhere else.
So that comparison falls apart pretty quickly, pretty entirely.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:57 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
There are absolutely pockets of 4chan that aren't actively awful in themselves (/mu/ has a fairly positive reputation in a lot of circles). So much of internet culture originates on the *chans, and there are big (if dysfunctional) trans communities on many of them. I don't actually know shit about the stormfront forums, but I'm guessing racist assholes also discuss music and recipes like everyone else.
There are absolutely people who see twitter just as you see 4chan.
posted by Dysk at 9:04 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
There are absolutely people who see twitter just as you see 4chan.
posted by Dysk at 9:04 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
If someone can make a case that 4chan hosts important accounts from public figures, journalists, governments, etc. that aren't online elsewhere, I would be highly open to and interested in hearing that argument.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:08 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:08 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Much like with the chans, if any of what remains on twitter is important, it will be reported or reposted elsewhere.
posted by Dysk at 9:10 AM on January 22
posted by Dysk at 9:10 AM on January 22
Or we could just wait a few weeks or months for a Wikipedia entry to emerge.
There aren't that many people here to teach all the new rules to anyway, so what's a few extra hurdles?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:16 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
There aren't that many people here to teach all the new rules to anyway, so what's a few extra hurdles?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:16 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Again, I think the question is less "can anything important only be found on Twitter" and more "do you want people making claims in their comments to cite their sources or not?" Personally, I prefer people to always cite their sources, whatever they may be, and wherever they may be located.
posted by coffeecat at 9:18 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 9:18 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
A lot of the arguments in favour of allowing links to twitter absolutely apply to linking to e.g. the stormfront forums or 4chan.
This is why I said I disfavor excluding widely used platforms/fora. Some weird corner of the internet is one thing, but a platform used by tens of millions of people including influential media and business and political people is another. Refusing to look at widely used platforms/media is simply blinding yourself to what is happening all around us. That's a personal choice that could be made, I suppose, but it's not a good choice for a website that wants to discuss reality.
posted by Mid at 9:22 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
This is why I said I disfavor excluding widely used platforms/fora. Some weird corner of the internet is one thing, but a platform used by tens of millions of people including influential media and business and political people is another. Refusing to look at widely used platforms/media is simply blinding yourself to what is happening all around us. That's a personal choice that could be made, I suppose, but it's not a good choice for a website that wants to discuss reality.
posted by Mid at 9:22 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
There are absolutely pockets of 4chan that aren't actively awful in themselves
I suspect the awful/not-awful ratio is reversed between 4chan and Twitter.
posted by Lemkin at 9:28 AM on January 22
I suspect the awful/not-awful ratio is reversed between 4chan and Twitter.
posted by Lemkin at 9:28 AM on January 22
If there's something interesting on Twitter that's interesting enough to post (and it can only be found on Twitter), upload screenshots to a free image hosting site and link those.
posted by Diskeater at 9:34 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 9:34 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
I've strongly supported banning it on sites with Twitter media embeds because the embeds encourage and privilege Twitter content while directly exposing readers to their tracking and analytics, which is a borderline safety risk at this point. It feels less pressing on MeFi because no one has to follow the link who doesn't want to.
One middle-ground option is to automatically replace all Twitter links with "xcancel.com" (aka Nitter), a free and open-source Twitter mirror that strips out all ads and tracking while still conveying replies, images, and even video. Only downside is the risk of Nitter going down and breaking those links, but imho that's worth not directly supporting what the site has become.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:00 AM on January 22 [8 favorites]
One middle-ground option is to automatically replace all Twitter links with "xcancel.com" (aka Nitter), a free and open-source Twitter mirror that strips out all ads and tracking while still conveying replies, images, and even video. Only downside is the risk of Nitter going down and breaking those links, but imho that's worth not directly supporting what the site has become.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:00 AM on January 22 [8 favorites]
It should be banned, if only to make a point.
Virtue-signalling is a bad rationale for rule-making.
posted by Klipspringer at 10:07 AM on January 22 [13 favorites]
Virtue-signalling is a bad rationale for rule-making.
posted by Klipspringer at 10:07 AM on January 22 [13 favorites]
Let’s be frank. The ultimate impulse at work here is to make Twitter cease to be. To remove it from the group of Things That Exist.
While I am sympathetic to the idea of wanting Elon Musk to go away - along with his political ideology and its adherents - that is a separate project.
posted by Lemkin at 10:21 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
While I am sympathetic to the idea of wanting Elon Musk to go away - along with his political ideology and its adherents - that is a separate project.
posted by Lemkin at 10:21 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
This is not a Nazi bar argument because the Nazi is not in the bar. When Elon Musk shows up on MetaFilter I support banning him.
The bar is what we control, and the analogy is you don't let a person into the bar. The bar analogy was never that you ban trivia questions where the trivia publisher is a Nazi. I get why the analogy is so popular, but it's a property owner argument at the end of the day.
Anyways, I like to do up side/down side.
Upside:
- people who believe in this kind of boycott feel good about themselves
- people without X accounts don't get the sign-up wall
- a miniscule amount of attention does not get directed to X
Downside:
- increasingly Byzantine rules discouraging posting
- members have to investigate not only the author but the platform before understanding the rules
- no consistency if you can still link to [long list that includes Murdoch media* and Bezos media]
- echo chamber effect
(If you're concerned about the algorithm, I watched one (1) right-wing-media video on YouTube followed by an old Antiques Roadshow clip and YouTube decided I'm a middle aged MAGA target and I got shit for weeks. This is not a X thing.
That said, I do support people putting their sources when they can, so others can avoid their clicks.
*Rupert Murdoch has been absolutely magnitudes better at creating racist and right-wing narrative than Elon Musk could ever be. And yes, that includes A&E and the History channel, as well as...Harper Collins.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:38 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
The bar is what we control, and the analogy is you don't let a person into the bar. The bar analogy was never that you ban trivia questions where the trivia publisher is a Nazi. I get why the analogy is so popular, but it's a property owner argument at the end of the day.
Anyways, I like to do up side/down side.
Upside:
- people who believe in this kind of boycott feel good about themselves
- people without X accounts don't get the sign-up wall
- a miniscule amount of attention does not get directed to X
Downside:
- increasingly Byzantine rules discouraging posting
- members have to investigate not only the author but the platform before understanding the rules
- no consistency if you can still link to [long list that includes Murdoch media* and Bezos media]
- echo chamber effect
(If you're concerned about the algorithm, I watched one (1) right-wing-media video on YouTube followed by an old Antiques Roadshow clip and YouTube decided I'm a middle aged MAGA target and I got shit for weeks. This is not a X thing.
That said, I do support people putting their sources when they can, so others can avoid their clicks.
*Rupert Murdoch has been absolutely magnitudes better at creating racist and right-wing narrative than Elon Musk could ever be. And yes, that includes A&E and the History channel, as well as...Harper Collins.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:38 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
No, this is silly.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:41 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:41 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
I'll be honest, up until recently I wasn't very receptive to this as I thought twitter was still a compelling part of the internet infrastructure. But now a ton of city-based subreddits are banning links to twitter, and frankly I'm feeling like if the normies there are willing to do it there must be something there. And collective action is more powerful than taking a quixotic stand on one's own.
posted by dusty potato at 10:55 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 10:55 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
New York Times - December 10, 2022
Critics Say Musk Has Revealed Himself as a Conservative. It’s Not So Simple.
posted by Lemkin at 11:10 AM on January 22
Critics Say Musk Has Revealed Himself as a Conservative. It’s Not So Simple.
posted by Lemkin at 11:10 AM on January 22
How often do people here even link Twitter? Not often, so I don’t know that it matters much one way or the other.
But I am willing to say directly that I am not a believer in this power
I am not a huge believer in the power of a small online community to change the world through a terms-of-service update
and that I’m not sure MetaFilter’s seeming belief in it has been a net plus for MetaFilter.
posted by atoxyl at 11:33 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
But I am willing to say directly that I am not a believer in this power
I am not a huge believer in the power of a small online community to change the world through a terms-of-service update
and that I’m not sure MetaFilter’s seeming belief in it has been a net plus for MetaFilter.
posted by atoxyl at 11:33 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Kind of weird to be at a point where MetaFilter is actually arguing about this and Reddit (a site which arguably contributed the most to the problem in the first place) is just going ahead and banning links to X across hundreds of subreddits with 1000s of subscribers.
Stop giving that tweaking Nazi fuck views and ad revenue. How is this even a question?
posted by fight or flight at 11:44 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
Stop giving that tweaking Nazi fuck views and ad revenue. How is this even a question?
posted by fight or flight at 11:44 AM on January 22 [11 favorites]
A lot of the arguments in favour of allowing links to twitter absolutely apply to linking to e.g. the stormfront forums or 4chan.
Do we have a policy against linking 4chan, or is it just something nobody does anyway?
posted by atoxyl at 11:49 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
Do we have a policy against linking 4chan, or is it just something nobody does anyway?
posted by atoxyl at 11:49 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
What you can't do as a non-user is see interactions - you can see a single linked tweet that someone posts, for instance, but you can't see replies unless someone posts them as a screenshot or from one of those services that formats them as a full story or whatever.
You also can’t see a user’s chronological timeline of tweets - it gives you a “best of.” Probably some other arbitrary restrictions, too.
posted by atoxyl at 11:59 AM on January 22
You also can’t see a user’s chronological timeline of tweets - it gives you a “best of.” Probably some other arbitrary restrictions, too.
posted by atoxyl at 11:59 AM on January 22
A subreddit deciding to ban X is equivalent to the many people right here who decide not to post links to Twitter - that is, it's the people running the subreddits, not Reddit-the-entity, deciding that (also that post says 'hundreds ARE CONSIDERING' and it's one of my pet peeves that this is presented as if this has actually happened. )
If you don't want a Twitter post don't post it, and if you don't want to click on a Twitter link you can mouseover/clickhold/whatever to check. That's the MetaFilter equivalent, because we have like 2500 active users and Reddit has over 100,000 active subreddits. If hundreds of them are considering banning Twitter, that's like .9%.
Worldwide visits to Reddit by billions
posted by warriorqueen at 12:15 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
If you don't want a Twitter post don't post it, and if you don't want to click on a Twitter link you can mouseover/clickhold/whatever to check. That's the MetaFilter equivalent, because we have like 2500 active users and Reddit has over 100,000 active subreddits. If hundreds of them are considering banning Twitter, that's like .9%.
Worldwide visits to Reddit by billions
posted by warriorqueen at 12:15 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Banning Twitter is part of a purist trend on metafilter. There are still many peace/anti-war activists, human rights people, journalists, much of the osint community (else it is telegram), enviro campaigngets, unions....
I still buy diesel - and oil industry has led genocides and wars for a century.
I drink milk, which (for my country) depends on phosphate stolen from the deliberately wrecked nation of Western Sahara, with some of the wrecking done by my country.
Capitalism.is.a.system the only way to change it is to know it (and weaponise it against itself). That cannot be done if we choose to camp outside the walls, and refuse to know the language and trends of the enemy.
Agree atoxyl, 4chan is a good source for me researching groups like Atlas Network, and Federalist Soc.
posted by unearthed at 12:27 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
I still buy diesel - and oil industry has led genocides and wars for a century.
I drink milk, which (for my country) depends on phosphate stolen from the deliberately wrecked nation of Western Sahara, with some of the wrecking done by my country.
Capitalism.is.a.system the only way to change it is to know it (and weaponise it against itself). That cannot be done if we choose to camp outside the walls, and refuse to know the language and trends of the enemy.
Agree atoxyl, 4chan is a good source for me researching groups like Atlas Network, and Federalist Soc.
posted by unearthed at 12:27 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
If you don't want a Twitter post don't post it, and if you don't want to click on a Twitter link you can mouseover/clickhold/whatever to check.
And the fact that there are vanishingly few such links in the first place makes me think this all.. dare I say… performative?
posted by Lemkin at 12:34 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
And the fact that there are vanishingly few such links in the first place makes me think this all.. dare I say… performative?
posted by Lemkin at 12:34 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I prefer to think of these times being harsh for a left leaning site like MeFi and its members. We'd all, individually or collectively, like to be able control the levels of bs that are already present, so solutions are being proposed to this problem which may or may not fit site wise/ But I wouldn't fault anyone for attempting to lessen all the bad stuff going on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:43 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:43 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
Agree atoxyl, 4chan is a good source for me researching groups like Atlas Network, and Federalist Soc.
Well I wasn’t suggesting it should be encouraged (and when it does make sense to cite 4chan it still doesn’t make sense to link threads directly because they are too ephemeral) just that I kind of doubt that we ever even had to have a conversation about banning linking to it because it’s not something that people do anyway, and because if someone did it would be pretty easy to decide if it were contextually justified? And in general I prefer things here to be contextual. Being able to do that is an upside of a small site!
Twitter links are presumably a little more common, and the boycott logic a little more solid, but still - if your 1m user subreddit does it, that’s a meaningful stand, if MeFi, a site that is not based on single links to mildly amusing social media posts, a site where you can’t even embed the damn things, does it, who is going to notice? Certainly it doesn’t justify implementing a filter, as the OP seems to suggest.
posted by atoxyl at 12:58 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Well I wasn’t suggesting it should be encouraged (and when it does make sense to cite 4chan it still doesn’t make sense to link threads directly because they are too ephemeral) just that I kind of doubt that we ever even had to have a conversation about banning linking to it because it’s not something that people do anyway, and because if someone did it would be pretty easy to decide if it were contextually justified? And in general I prefer things here to be contextual. Being able to do that is an upside of a small site!
Twitter links are presumably a little more common, and the boycott logic a little more solid, but still - if your 1m user subreddit does it, that’s a meaningful stand, if MeFi, a site that is not based on single links to mildly amusing social media posts, a site where you can’t even embed the damn things, does it, who is going to notice? Certainly it doesn’t justify implementing a filter, as the OP seems to suggest.
posted by atoxyl at 12:58 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I don't want to single out individual people since a few have said it, but can someone who does not like the Nazi Bar analogy explain why not?
(Note: I'm not asking why it wouldn't apply to this situation. I've seen some people not liking it in general, and that's what I'm asking about. Also, I'm not asking as a "challenge" or anything. I'm legitimately curious about the potential flaws in the logic of the story and the conclusion it comes to.)
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 1:48 PM on January 22
(Note: I'm not asking why it wouldn't apply to this situation. I've seen some people not liking it in general, and that's what I'm asking about. Also, I'm not asking as a "challenge" or anything. I'm legitimately curious about the potential flaws in the logic of the story and the conclusion it comes to.)
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 1:48 PM on January 22
There's always been a substantial group of twitter fans on metafilter. Personally I'm not a fan and I'd be happy to boot it.
The predominant twitter link I see (in comments primarily but posts as well) on metafilter is people simply tunneling comments over here, primarily "hot takes" and "zingers". I hate that. It's links of the form: here's something I read from some pseudonymous commenter on a different social media site. The esteem some folks hold twitter in seems to make it seem more acceptable than a random deep-link to a particularly great comment on reddit.
posted by Wood at 1:54 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
The predominant twitter link I see (in comments primarily but posts as well) on metafilter is people simply tunneling comments over here, primarily "hot takes" and "zingers". I hate that. It's links of the form: here's something I read from some pseudonymous commenter on a different social media site. The esteem some folks hold twitter in seems to make it seem more acceptable than a random deep-link to a particularly great comment on reddit.
posted by Wood at 1:54 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
...the Nazi Bar analogy is a great anecdote - as an analogy it kinda falls apart in that the group involved with the bar (punk rockers (in the telling I heard)) is quite narrow and the internet is absolutely not.
That said - fuck Nazis. Fuck Musk: ban twitter or don't I don't care, but I won't knowingly click any of links to it.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:57 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
That said - fuck Nazis. Fuck Musk: ban twitter or don't I don't care, but I won't knowingly click any of links to it.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:57 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
This seems right.
Upside:
- people who believe in this kind of boycott feel good about themselves
- people without X accounts don't get the sign-up wall
- a miniscule amount of attention does not get directed to X
Downside:
- increasingly Byzantine rules discouraging posting
- members have to investigate not only the author but the platform before understanding the rules
- no consistency if you can still link to [long list that includes Murdoch media* and Bezos media]
- echo chamber effect
Pretty sure anyone who just posted a link to a Twitter thread that didn’t have a lot of context as to why would get flagged to hell, anyway.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:07 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Upside:
- people who believe in this kind of boycott feel good about themselves
- people without X accounts don't get the sign-up wall
- a miniscule amount of attention does not get directed to X
Downside:
- increasingly Byzantine rules discouraging posting
- members have to investigate not only the author but the platform before understanding the rules
- no consistency if you can still link to [long list that includes Murdoch media* and Bezos media]
- echo chamber effect
Pretty sure anyone who just posted a link to a Twitter thread that didn’t have a lot of context as to why would get flagged to hell, anyway.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:07 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Flagged to Hell: My Story of Surviving MetaFilter and the Long Road Back
posted by Lemkin at 2:16 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
posted by Lemkin at 2:16 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I am taken aback by the sheer number of people who do not understand the meaning of the Nazi bar analogy and confidently misapply it in wildly off-base ways.
At this point, I would basically beg folks to sidestep that analogy and just speak plainly, because jumbled, overextended metaphors won't help either side of this discussion.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:34 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
At this point, I would basically beg folks to sidestep that analogy and just speak plainly, because jumbled, overextended metaphors won't help either side of this discussion.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:34 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Over 10,000 books were banned in public schools last year and we just elected a president who doesn't respect the constitution. Yet free speech is the first amendment to that same constitution, and it's what makes free opinion on sites like this one possible. So maybe we should recognize we don't live in an era where banning is a harmless option anymore.
posted by Violet Blue at 3:03 PM on January 22
posted by Violet Blue at 3:03 PM on January 22
My least favourite thing on any website or social media is when people drag bad takes and awful content over from Twitter. Like, my brother in Christ, I don't care about your hot take on a bad take from another website. Repost that on your blog or on your own Twitter account.
Once I deleted my account, I have never found a reason to check in with the dumpster fire over there. I already know much of it is shitheads; why would I want to keep metaphorically punching myself in the face by hate-reading?
posted by Kitteh at 3:08 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Once I deleted my account, I have never found a reason to check in with the dumpster fire over there. I already know much of it is shitheads; why would I want to keep metaphorically punching myself in the face by hate-reading?
posted by Kitteh at 3:08 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I don't want to single out individual people since a few have said it, but can someone who does not like the Nazi Bar analogy explain why not?
It's a fun story. It's about one individual being kicked out of one place by the owner of that place (sometimes just the bartender). And then the owner/bartender tells a truism that if you keep letting Nazis come to the bar it becomes a Nazi bar. So moral of the story is to shun everyone who is a Nazi.
But in real life, the Nazis go to the next bar. Or if the Nazis own the one well-trafficked mall, the stores that don't open at the mall don't get enough customers and they shut down. Or if the Nazis are on the board of the bus service in town, avoiding the bus may mean people don't have access to the transportation they need.
And of course, the Nazi is obvious. I will give you that Elon Musk is obvious. But he's just - not in the bar. He's the guy that owns the fibre optic cable. The bar owner is not ripping his phone out of the wall and shutting down his DoorDash account and website and Yelp reviews.
In other words, the anecdote (edited) works because it's a) super obvious, b) consequence-less and c) the consequences that are outlined that would have happened (it becomes a Nazi bar) are hypothetical and simple.
The bar never suffers for it and never has to compete in a world where the Nazi bar has a significant market share. It's a one-night story. And like, I want that world too, where you just turf the guy out and he has no bar.
But it's a superhero story, and not really that relevant to most questions around media platforms, access to information, being informed, holding space for discourse, etc.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:09 PM on January 22 [12 favorites]
It's a fun story. It's about one individual being kicked out of one place by the owner of that place (sometimes just the bartender). And then the owner/bartender tells a truism that if you keep letting Nazis come to the bar it becomes a Nazi bar. So moral of the story is to shun everyone who is a Nazi.
But in real life, the Nazis go to the next bar. Or if the Nazis own the one well-trafficked mall, the stores that don't open at the mall don't get enough customers and they shut down. Or if the Nazis are on the board of the bus service in town, avoiding the bus may mean people don't have access to the transportation they need.
And of course, the Nazi is obvious. I will give you that Elon Musk is obvious. But he's just - not in the bar. He's the guy that owns the fibre optic cable. The bar owner is not ripping his phone out of the wall and shutting down his DoorDash account and website and Yelp reviews.
In other words, the anecdote (edited) works because it's a) super obvious, b) consequence-less and c) the consequences that are outlined that would have happened (it becomes a Nazi bar) are hypothetical and simple.
The bar never suffers for it and never has to compete in a world where the Nazi bar has a significant market share. It's a one-night story. And like, I want that world too, where you just turf the guy out and he has no bar.
But it's a superhero story, and not really that relevant to most questions around media platforms, access to information, being informed, holding space for discourse, etc.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:09 PM on January 22 [12 favorites]
Oh, I forgot to add, the bar sells food and drink. How about a bar that bans whiskey.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:17 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:17 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
"And of course, the Nazi is obvious. I will give you that Elon Musk is obvious. But he's just - not in the bar. He's the guy that owns the fibre optic cable."
He's in the bar, he's the guy that owns the bar.
posted by EarnestDeer at 3:18 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
He's in the bar, he's the guy that owns the bar.
posted by EarnestDeer at 3:18 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
Yeah I don't really want to argue about it, but it's like you have a bar where whenever someone orders a whiskey neat, you yell "DON'T ORDER THAT NAZI WHISKEY" and then all the people there who were going to order a rum and coke or a vodka soda are like, I'm going to a bar where I don't get yelled at for my drink.
But sure, we're not talking on Twitter, so Elon is not the guy that owns the bar here.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:21 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
But sure, we're not talking on Twitter, so Elon is not the guy that owns the bar here.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:21 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I just went to Reddit to see what was happening and the first thing I saw was "X is just a sans-serif swastika" which is at least as useful a rubric as the Nazi bar story.
posted by Rumple at 3:41 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
posted by Rumple at 3:41 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Picturing Jon Taffer from Bar Rescue taking a hand.
“You’ve got NAZIS in your bar! And you’ve got a CHILD to support! SHAME on you! I will not rescue a Nazi bar. So in the morning, either the Nazis are gone… or I’M gone!”
posted by Lemkin at 3:42 PM on January 22
“You’ve got NAZIS in your bar! And you’ve got a CHILD to support! SHAME on you! I will not rescue a Nazi bar. So in the morning, either the Nazis are gone… or I’M gone!”
posted by Lemkin at 3:42 PM on January 22
because we have like 2500 active users
Sidebar: there's a new chart showing users by activity level. We have either 2700 or 1000 or 500 active users across all sites, depending on whether you define "active" as 1 or 5 or 10 comments/posts per month.
posted by Klipspringer at 3:42 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Sidebar: there's a new chart showing users by activity level. We have either 2700 or 1000 or 500 active users across all sites, depending on whether you define "active" as 1 or 5 or 10 comments/posts per month.
posted by Klipspringer at 3:42 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
"Let's keep links to Twitter because there are also good things there" is the new "I only look at Playboy for the articles."
posted by yellowcandy at 3:50 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by yellowcandy at 3:50 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Before BlueSky gained traction, there really was nowhere like Twitter to connect with local community people in a real-time way. But now that it has, and everyone of value is migrating there, there is no point to Twitter.
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:44 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:44 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, in Germany.
The reason to block Twitter is because it is run by a Nazi. If that's not a good enough reason for you, what else would it take?
posted by Diskeater at 5:49 PM on January 22 [7 favorites]
The reason to block Twitter is because it is run by a Nazi. If that's not a good enough reason for you, what else would it take?
posted by Diskeater at 5:49 PM on January 22 [7 favorites]
I'm for blocking the site. If citations are so important, why not take a screenshot and post that instead of linking to the site itself, or find some other workaround? Just because Metafilter is small and it might not make that big a difference doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do -- an accumulation of small steps in the right direction is how positive change happens. Simply going along with the flow because why not and its not that bad is how we end up with terrible, terrible things in the long run. Here is a small thing that we have control over, so why not do the right thing?
posted by cubby at 6:53 PM on January 22 [5 favorites]
posted by cubby at 6:53 PM on January 22 [5 favorites]
But in real life, the Nazis go to the next bar....And like, I want that world too, where you just turf the guy out and he has no bar.
I guess i don't see the point of the story ad the guy having no bar. I think even in the story the guy goes to the next bar. Ithe bartender isnt trying to hurt or change the Nazi. The bartender is just protecting his own bar. The next bar is neither here nor there to that purpose.
This might suggest the metaphor doesnt fit here, but I'm not convinced that means the conclusions from nazi bar story (dont let nazis into your space because they will ruin yoir space) is wrong.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:47 PM on January 22
I guess i don't see the point of the story ad the guy having no bar. I think even in the story the guy goes to the next bar. Ithe bartender isnt trying to hurt or change the Nazi. The bartender is just protecting his own bar. The next bar is neither here nor there to that purpose.
This might suggest the metaphor doesnt fit here, but I'm not convinced that means the conclusions from nazi bar story (dont let nazis into your space because they will ruin yoir space) is wrong.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:47 PM on January 22
i would like to point out the proscription against posting the guardian was a request i made a while back specifically with respect to trans issues, and the argument was that we shouldn't be linking institutionally or vehemently anti-trans media publications on matters specifically regarding trans people.
it was not and was never a global one.
using a narrowly targeted, narrowly argued request, and combining that with this larger one feels a little gross.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:15 PM on January 22 [9 favorites]
it was not and was never a global one.
using a narrowly targeted, narrowly argued request, and combining that with this larger one feels a little gross.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:15 PM on January 22 [9 favorites]
Are there other sites that get a blanket ban already?
If Metafilter is blocking links to X/twitter, should it also block links to Tesla and SpaceX? They are run by the same guy. (If I can be parenthetically sarcastic, SpaceX is a rocket company for fuck's sake! Rocket's are pretty goddamn Nazi. Space Nazis on Mars!) SpaceX occasionally does things that are interesting to people like me who like space things. It kind of makes me sick to my stomach, nowadays, but there it is. Tesla has done interesting electric car things, and may do them again. I think those companies might get linked in good metafilter posts in the future.
As much as I find it pleasant to not do anything that enriches Musk, I think site rules against endorsing nazi content, and site norms against linking to content that isn't available on the open web means X/twitter links are already frowned upon.
posted by surlyben at 8:16 PM on January 22
If Metafilter is blocking links to X/twitter, should it also block links to Tesla and SpaceX? They are run by the same guy. (If I can be parenthetically sarcastic, SpaceX is a rocket company for fuck's sake! Rocket's are pretty goddamn Nazi. Space Nazis on Mars!) SpaceX occasionally does things that are interesting to people like me who like space things. It kind of makes me sick to my stomach, nowadays, but there it is. Tesla has done interesting electric car things, and may do them again. I think those companies might get linked in good metafilter posts in the future.
As much as I find it pleasant to not do anything that enriches Musk, I think site rules against endorsing nazi content, and site norms against linking to content that isn't available on the open web means X/twitter links are already frowned upon.
posted by surlyben at 8:16 PM on January 22
Elon Musk performed two Nazi salutes.
Elon Musk bought Twitter and let actual Nazis (and white supremecists, et al) back on to Twitter after they had been banned.
Elon Musk promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories.
As far as I'm concerned, these things alone mean that he's a Nazi.
The fact is that he's the owner of his own bar, one that is rapidly filling up with Nazis, and lots of people (myself included) are leaving/have left to go to other bars.
Personally, I don't want our bar and his bar to be entwined any more than they need to be. Perhaps, once the new site is up and running, we could add a "warning: this contains a twitter link" thing to a post or comment that has a link to that site. This allows people who can't hover over links to know that it's a twitter link, and also provides extra caution to those of us who absolutely refuse to go to that site.
posted by juliebug at 8:24 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Elon Musk bought Twitter and let actual Nazis (and white supremecists, et al) back on to Twitter after they had been banned.
Elon Musk promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories.
As far as I'm concerned, these things alone mean that he's a Nazi.
The fact is that he's the owner of his own bar, one that is rapidly filling up with Nazis, and lots of people (myself included) are leaving/have left to go to other bars.
Personally, I don't want our bar and his bar to be entwined any more than they need to be. Perhaps, once the new site is up and running, we could add a "warning: this contains a twitter link" thing to a post or comment that has a link to that site. This allows people who can't hover over links to know that it's a twitter link, and also provides extra caution to those of us who absolutely refuse to go to that site.
posted by juliebug at 8:24 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
should it also block links to Tesla and SpaceX?
Blocking links to Twitter is different than blocking links to Tesla or SpaceX. Twitter.com IS the product.
I think those companies might get linked in good metafilter posts in the future.
If they do something newsworthy, it will be on the news. Same with Twitter.
posted by Diskeater at 9:08 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Blocking links to Twitter is different than blocking links to Tesla or SpaceX. Twitter.com IS the product.
I think those companies might get linked in good metafilter posts in the future.
If they do something newsworthy, it will be on the news. Same with Twitter.
posted by Diskeater at 9:08 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I've had a look now and I can't see anything banning any particular websites on the current guidelines, content policy, microaggressions or unacceptable words pages. As far as I know Metafilter has always relied on context and common sense rather than a list of banned sites.
If a ban was to be put in place, how would it work? Could we just add x.com and twitter.com to the unacceptable words list, which is an automatic filter? That might be inconvenient if it meant we couldn't even mention the site. Can we add HTML fragments to the list which would ban hrefs to them?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:09 AM on January 23
If a ban was to be put in place, how would it work? Could we just add x.com and twitter.com to the unacceptable words list, which is an automatic filter? That might be inconvenient if it meant we couldn't even mention the site. Can we add HTML fragments to the list which would ban hrefs to them?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:09 AM on January 23
I think it’s important to note that Metafilter is actually *behind* the curve on this one - number of Reddit subreddits, even ones like r/nba, are banning x links right now. This isn’t us being precious, this is what people who oppose Nazi shit are doing. Mainstream news is even reporting on it.
posted by corb at 3:29 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:29 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but I think that's because people on most general interest subreddits aren't that politically aware and aren't sensitive to what they post.
In the old days people used to quite often post cute Twitter threads on Metafilter, e.g. this from 2015, but that seems to have pretty much stopped already. I don't think MeFites need training wheels.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:44 AM on January 23
In the old days people used to quite often post cute Twitter threads on Metafilter, e.g. this from 2015, but that seems to have pretty much stopped already. I don't think MeFites need training wheels.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:44 AM on January 23
How would this work in practice - making a rule against linking to Twitter? There aren't any other sites we can't link to on MF, are there?
A person creates a post or comment with a twitter link. It gets flagged, and a mod deletes it? Or places a mod note reminding people of the rule? Or both? Then the mod has to deal with any fallout resulting, and prevent the thread getting derailed as we have a repeat of the conversation on this thread.
Or it's some kind of tech fix where links to Twitter don't work? And mods have to field repeated questions about why a link isn't working.
I'd prefer the mods to concentrate on the work they already have.
I prefer if people can link to whatever, other people can have opinions about wether the OP is a Nazi or not.
Boycotts work if they're organised by large groups with clear outcomes.
Individual people can do or not do things according to what they feel strongly about, and call others out for not sharing a strongly held belief.
We don't need a rule about this.
posted by Zumbador at 4:11 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
A person creates a post or comment with a twitter link. It gets flagged, and a mod deletes it? Or places a mod note reminding people of the rule? Or both? Then the mod has to deal with any fallout resulting, and prevent the thread getting derailed as we have a repeat of the conversation on this thread.
Or it's some kind of tech fix where links to Twitter don't work? And mods have to field repeated questions about why a link isn't working.
I'd prefer the mods to concentrate on the work they already have.
I prefer if people can link to whatever, other people can have opinions about wether the OP is a Nazi or not.
Boycotts work if they're organised by large groups with clear outcomes.
Individual people can do or not do things according to what they feel strongly about, and call others out for not sharing a strongly held belief.
We don't need a rule about this.
posted by Zumbador at 4:11 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
'Boycotts only work if lots of people are doing them' seems like a really weird justification for not taking part. Are people imagining that all successful boycotts started with lots of people already involved?
posted by Dysk at 4:41 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 4:41 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
I think the only way this will really work is with a technical solution. I would support a fix that would kill all Twitter links, for all of the usual reasons. Please do not add another soft guideline that serve as another excuse for MeFites to attack each other over source quality. I don't think there's that much un-CW-ed Twitter linkage here at this point, in any case.
mittens' comment is so good, I am pasting the entire thing here, for the benefit of those who may have scrolled past it last time:
I would like to take this opportunity to make clear my opposition to the "Nazi bar" parable. If we were to take that story seriously, then sites like Metafilter would cease to exist, because there would be nothing left to link to. We see this in so many discussions: Can't quote the Guardian, can't quote the Times, can't quote the Post, can't quote from a Substack. Not to throw around the equally vacuous "no ethical consumption under capitalism" line, but all our media comes pre-compromised. All of it. It's all owned by billionaires, it all platforms the worst people on earth, and it's all we have, if we would like to have conversations online.
The critique, such that it is, is always one-sided. Someone will say "you shouldn't post that, it's from Twitter," but they do not share their complete media-consumption history, so you're never able to give them the same scrutiny they have given your post.
We need to be able to separate compromised platforms from compromised writing. If we want to ruthlessly scrutinize a particular argument, great, go forth and do so, it can make for enlightening conversation. But at this point in the twenty-first century, pointing to a platform and saying "it's owned by a fascist" is neither informative nor ethically useful.
I think this general topic is one that site leadership should take up down the road. Not Twitter, but the wholesale way we deal with terrible or disreputable sites. Right now, it's a bit of a free-for-all, and I think a consistent way forward would be useful.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:09 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
mittens' comment is so good, I am pasting the entire thing here, for the benefit of those who may have scrolled past it last time:
I would like to take this opportunity to make clear my opposition to the "Nazi bar" parable. If we were to take that story seriously, then sites like Metafilter would cease to exist, because there would be nothing left to link to. We see this in so many discussions: Can't quote the Guardian, can't quote the Times, can't quote the Post, can't quote from a Substack. Not to throw around the equally vacuous "no ethical consumption under capitalism" line, but all our media comes pre-compromised. All of it. It's all owned by billionaires, it all platforms the worst people on earth, and it's all we have, if we would like to have conversations online.
The critique, such that it is, is always one-sided. Someone will say "you shouldn't post that, it's from Twitter," but they do not share their complete media-consumption history, so you're never able to give them the same scrutiny they have given your post.
We need to be able to separate compromised platforms from compromised writing. If we want to ruthlessly scrutinize a particular argument, great, go forth and do so, it can make for enlightening conversation. But at this point in the twenty-first century, pointing to a platform and saying "it's owned by a fascist" is neither informative nor ethically useful.
I think this general topic is one that site leadership should take up down the road. Not Twitter, but the wholesale way we deal with terrible or disreputable sites. Right now, it's a bit of a free-for-all, and I think a consistent way forward would be useful.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:09 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Are people imagining that all successful boycotts started with lots of people already involved?
No. I mean if you want to organise a boycott, go for it, and I'll probably help you. But individual people not doing something, or randomly adking other individual people not do do something, isn't a boycott.
A boycott means coming up with a specific, measurable goal, and a strategy for how to reach that goal. Figuring out a coherent message about the goal, probably different messages for different audiences and contexts, finding the best ways to broadcast those messages.
You're conflating two useful and valuable things and judging one as if it is the other.
Not doing a thing because it goes against your principles, whether or not this action has measurable consequences: useful and valuable!
Boycotting a thing / striking so that there are real world consequences: useful and valuable!
But the use and value of each is different.
posted by Zumbador at 5:11 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
No. I mean if you want to organise a boycott, go for it, and I'll probably help you. But individual people not doing something, or randomly adking other individual people not do do something, isn't a boycott.
A boycott means coming up with a specific, measurable goal, and a strategy for how to reach that goal. Figuring out a coherent message about the goal, probably different messages for different audiences and contexts, finding the best ways to broadcast those messages.
You're conflating two useful and valuable things and judging one as if it is the other.
Not doing a thing because it goes against your principles, whether or not this action has measurable consequences: useful and valuable!
Boycotting a thing / striking so that there are real world consequences: useful and valuable!
But the use and value of each is different.
posted by Zumbador at 5:11 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
I’m all for people boycotting Twitter. If my governments and other orgs weren’t using it as their official channel I would probably close my account and I don’t intend to post. Go ahead and boycott!
I don’t agree with continuing to drag MetaFilter into determining what’s morally pure. I’ll say again: Rupert Murdoch caused Brexit and MAGA. We don’t ban 20th Century Fox links from Fanfare. I do not think it’s a good idea to start making these decisions to limit a platform (not an individual writer or topic) because an ex-officio member of a right-wing populist government is trolling everyone. Shutting discussion down and turning thoughtful people against themselves for their media (the “medium is the message sense”) is what they want. Deplatforming the independent journalism that happens in Substack is what they want. Eliminating the possibility of the kind of organizing Twitter used to have also meets their goals. But regardless I just don’t think MetaFilter, at this stage in its development, should play the game at all. Moderate posts and comments and not platforms.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:16 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I don’t agree with continuing to drag MetaFilter into determining what’s morally pure. I’ll say again: Rupert Murdoch caused Brexit and MAGA. We don’t ban 20th Century Fox links from Fanfare. I do not think it’s a good idea to start making these decisions to limit a platform (not an individual writer or topic) because an ex-officio member of a right-wing populist government is trolling everyone. Shutting discussion down and turning thoughtful people against themselves for their media (the “medium is the message sense”) is what they want. Deplatforming the independent journalism that happens in Substack is what they want. Eliminating the possibility of the kind of organizing Twitter used to have also meets their goals. But regardless I just don’t think MetaFilter, at this stage in its development, should play the game at all. Moderate posts and comments and not platforms.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:16 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Not doing a thing because it goes against your principles, whether or not this action has measurable consequences: useful and valuable!
Boycotting a thing / striking so that there are real world consequences: useful and valuable!
The only difference is scale. Enough of the former becomes the latter.
The critique, such that it is, is always one-sided. Someone will say "you shouldn't post that, it's from Twitter," but they do not share their complete media-consumption history, so you're never able to give them the same scrutiny they have given your post.
This is a false equivalence - their posting history is just at public. They're not criticising your media consumption habits, but what you post. Attacking their consumption habits is a non-sequitur.
posted by Dysk at 5:17 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Boycotting a thing / striking so that there are real world consequences: useful and valuable!
The only difference is scale. Enough of the former becomes the latter.
The critique, such that it is, is always one-sided. Someone will say "you shouldn't post that, it's from Twitter," but they do not share their complete media-consumption history, so you're never able to give them the same scrutiny they have given your post.
This is a false equivalence - their posting history is just at public. They're not criticising your media consumption habits, but what you post. Attacking their consumption habits is a non-sequitur.
posted by Dysk at 5:17 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
This is a false equivalence - their posting history is just at public. They're not criticising your media consumption habits, but what you post. Attacking their consumption habits is a non-sequitur.
I don't think this is true. Many, many MeFites past and current comment in posts as if they are standing on the highest of moral grounds, judging their fellow MeFites who use Bad Media. It's super-common here.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:29 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I don't think this is true. Many, many MeFites past and current comment in posts as if they are standing on the highest of moral grounds, judging their fellow MeFites who use Bad Media. It's super-common here.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:29 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I don’t use twitter, but I am agnostic on whether there should be a ban. If there is a ban, it would be better if it was explicit, like you couldn’t post links to the site, rather than a ban listed on some policy page that no one looks at. If banning it was built into the new site, it might make sense to also ban hate sites as determined by some reputable source like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
posted by snofoam at 5:30 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by snofoam at 5:30 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
I don't think this is true. Many, many MeFites past and current comment in posts as if they are standing on the highest of moral grounds, judging their fellow MeFites who use Bad Media. It's super-common here.
If you're being asked not to read a particular thing, sure. But this is in response to requests not to link something here, which is different.
posted by Dysk at 5:45 AM on January 23
If you're being asked not to read a particular thing, sure. But this is in response to requests not to link something here, which is different.
posted by Dysk at 5:45 AM on January 23
I have to say that the longer this thread has gone on, the more sympathetic I have become to the boycotters’ frame of mind.
That said, “there is a very small chance that I might unknowingly click on a Twitter link, thereby enriching by a fraction of a cent a Nazi worth hundreds of billions of dollars” is not a scenario that calls for a site-wide policy, let alone diverting scarce technical resources to it. If it happens, one is at liberty to contact the link-sharer by MeFi Mail to explain one’s objection.
posted by Lemkin at 6:26 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
That said, “there is a very small chance that I might unknowingly click on a Twitter link, thereby enriching by a fraction of a cent a Nazi worth hundreds of billions of dollars” is not a scenario that calls for a site-wide policy, let alone diverting scarce technical resources to it. If it happens, one is at liberty to contact the link-sharer by MeFi Mail to explain one’s objection.
posted by Lemkin at 6:26 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
It has been an entire month since anybody posted a link to either x.com or twitter.com on the front page.
I have just systematically checked this by repeatedly clicking "Older Posts" and searching the page source.
The last link was in this FPP which was a cute story about a meme from ten years earlier. It linked to this tweet in which the guy recreates the photo in the same spot.
People posting links to Twitter content does not appear to be a problem that we actually have. There are a lot of actual problems in the world. Please consider directing your energies into one of them.
posted by automatronic at 6:28 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
I have just systematically checked this by repeatedly clicking "Older Posts" and searching the page source.
The last link was in this FPP which was a cute story about a meme from ten years earlier. It linked to this tweet in which the guy recreates the photo in the same spot.
People posting links to Twitter content does not appear to be a problem that we actually have. There are a lot of actual problems in the world. Please consider directing your energies into one of them.
posted by automatronic at 6:28 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
It has been an entire month since anybody posted a link to either x.com or twitter.com on the front page.
Just as a data point, here's a comment on the Blue citing a Twitter thread with a link from earlier today.
I don't think there are many FPPs that use Twitter as a source these days (mostly because the site is increasingly difficult to use and full of dogshit content), but it does turn up in comments when people decide to link to some snarky commentary or whatever.
posted by fight or flight at 7:16 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Just as a data point, here's a comment on the Blue citing a Twitter thread with a link from earlier today.
I don't think there are many FPPs that use Twitter as a source these days (mostly because the site is increasingly difficult to use and full of dogshit content), but it does turn up in comments when people decide to link to some snarky commentary or whatever.
posted by fight or flight at 7:16 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
What would we lose if we banned Twitter? FPP sources are varied enough that the loss of one source doesn't seem like it would have a serious effect. And driving Twitter page views down, which in turn makes advertisers think twice about supporting it, is a goal worth pursuing.
posted by tommasz at 7:39 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by tommasz at 7:39 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
We don't have any mechanism for banning sites from being linked to. So we're talking about asking that the site's resources be spent on having staff implementing, maintaining and enforcing that banning feature, all to solve a problem that seems to be completely insignificant, for a purported benefit ("driving Twitter page views down") that will be equally insignificant because MeFi is not driving any significant traffic to anywhere.
The only thing this is going to drive down is MeFi's limited resources, all of which could be better spent on things that are actually productive. Like attracting new users to this site, rather than telling people off for using other ones.
posted by automatronic at 7:53 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
The only thing this is going to drive down is MeFi's limited resources, all of which could be better spent on things that are actually productive. Like attracting new users to this site, rather than telling people off for using other ones.
posted by automatronic at 7:53 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
We already have an unspoken rule about not linking directly to the Guardian/NYT/WaPo etc without a warning or alternative means of accessing the same content. "Don't link to hateful websites" is in the guidelines. I don't really see how suggesting that people who post Twitter links find an alternative source or means to convey the same content is that different. Even on Reddit it's not an actual ban of Twitter content, since many subreddits are still allowing screenshots from Twitter, just as long as it's not a direct link.
Though to be honest for me it's less of an actual issue and more of a line in the sand I assumed most people on this site would be happy to not cross. Less "grar grar never link this" and more "hey, this site is shitty and owned by shitty people, let's collectively agree to find some other way to do things". I'm pretty surprised at the amount of concentrated pushback going on, especially from site users I kind of assumed would be on the side of "how about we minimise Nazi-affiliated content in our community", which (imo) is what's essentially being asked.
Feels a little like perfect is once again the enemy of good. But so it goes on the grey, I guess.
posted by fight or flight at 8:14 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Though to be honest for me it's less of an actual issue and more of a line in the sand I assumed most people on this site would be happy to not cross. Less "grar grar never link this" and more "hey, this site is shitty and owned by shitty people, let's collectively agree to find some other way to do things". I'm pretty surprised at the amount of concentrated pushback going on, especially from site users I kind of assumed would be on the side of "how about we minimise Nazi-affiliated content in our community", which (imo) is what's essentially being asked.
Feels a little like perfect is once again the enemy of good. But so it goes on the grey, I guess.
posted by fight or flight at 8:14 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty surprised at the amount of concentrated pushback going on
This seems an elaborate way of saying “many people disagree with me”.
posted by Lemkin at 8:53 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
This seems an elaborate way of saying “many people disagree with me”.
posted by Lemkin at 8:53 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
The only thing this is going to drive down is MeFi's limited resources, all of which could be better spent on things that are actually productive. Like attracting new users to this site, rather than telling people off for using other ones.
My assumption was that the latter is such an ingrained part of site culture that it was unreasonble to think that it wouldn't happen. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:56 AM on January 23
My assumption was that the latter is such an ingrained part of site culture that it was unreasonble to think that it wouldn't happen. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:56 AM on January 23
Yes? I'm not disputing that. Are we supposed to only say things on here that everyone agrees with? Isn't this the subsite for arguments, or is that down the hall?
It's just, I don't know. Of all the requests lately, I just didn't expect this to be the one where a bunch of Mefites would dig in their heels in the name of the status quo. Judging by this post Twitter seems to be both important enough to require protection from censorship and somehow simultaneously unimportant enough that hardly anyone uses it, so who cares. It strikes me as weird to see on a site I've always relied on to care very strongly for doing The Right Thing.
posted by fight or flight at 9:02 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
It's just, I don't know. Of all the requests lately, I just didn't expect this to be the one where a bunch of Mefites would dig in their heels in the name of the status quo. Judging by this post Twitter seems to be both important enough to require protection from censorship and somehow simultaneously unimportant enough that hardly anyone uses it, so who cares. It strikes me as weird to see on a site I've always relied on to care very strongly for doing The Right Thing.
posted by fight or flight at 9:02 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
but on the other hand there is the "Nazi bar" argument.
All of a sudden Bertolt Brecht and The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahoganny came to mind. But who wants to sing Oh, tell me the way to the next Nazi bar? Not I.
Life is so sad these days.
posted by y2karl at 9:13 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
All of a sudden Bertolt Brecht and The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahoganny came to mind. But who wants to sing Oh, tell me the way to the next Nazi bar? Not I.
Life is so sad these days.
posted by y2karl at 9:13 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
We already have an unspoken rule about not linking directly to the Guardian/NYT/WaPo etc without a warning or alternative means of accessing the same content. "Don't link to hateful websites" is in the guidelines.
Right, and in the user survey we did it came through loud and clear that people frequently choose not to post or comment on the site -- or start posting and commenting and give up and hit the back button on their browser -- because they feel pre-judged for what they will say or accidentally link to despite being in general agreement with the principles of the site. And they don't feel like they can track from month to month what the "okay" things are vs. the "not okay" things.
Those "unspoken rules" are pretty difficult to navigate. Especially if you aren't a Very Online person, etc. Also hard to measure in results because the results rest way more in the Things People Aren't Doing for several reasons, than visible on the site in terms of people aggressively posting only links to those sites. I agree that if we are going to ban Twitter, make it impossible, but really I just think we need to take a pause on trying to make MetaFilter, The Community/Entity a part of that kind of boycotting.
I'm completely good with moderating the content here for its content - that's where the values are. But the boycott end to me is like...it's a tool we can leave in the toolkit for the site, and still post articles about why as individuals we can consider the same.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:46 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
Right, and in the user survey we did it came through loud and clear that people frequently choose not to post or comment on the site -- or start posting and commenting and give up and hit the back button on their browser -- because they feel pre-judged for what they will say or accidentally link to despite being in general agreement with the principles of the site. And they don't feel like they can track from month to month what the "okay" things are vs. the "not okay" things.
Those "unspoken rules" are pretty difficult to navigate. Especially if you aren't a Very Online person, etc. Also hard to measure in results because the results rest way more in the Things People Aren't Doing for several reasons, than visible on the site in terms of people aggressively posting only links to those sites. I agree that if we are going to ban Twitter, make it impossible, but really I just think we need to take a pause on trying to make MetaFilter, The Community/Entity a part of that kind of boycotting.
I'm completely good with moderating the content here for its content - that's where the values are. But the boycott end to me is like...it's a tool we can leave in the toolkit for the site, and still post articles about why as individuals we can consider the same.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:46 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
We already have an unspoken rule about not linking directly to the Guardian/NYT/WaPo [...]
That is very incorrect. There is a specific advisory about not linking to the Guardian's poor coverage of trans content, there is no rule about not linking to NY Times or Washington Post. You're mistaken because, since the NYT and the Post (and maybe Guardian too?) often require subscriptions to read full articles, people posting will often include Archive links along with the article for folks without subscriptions.
Also, I hate to say I was ahead of the curve on this but I WAS TOTALLY AHEAD OF THE CURVE WHERE'S MY COOKIE
The best solution is a technical one that keeps the information for us but avoids sending traffic to Twitter, and in fact now that the site is undergoing repairs this is actually the time to make this happen. Xcancel.com is a solution that works right now. Just as the site automatically stops someone from posting slurs, if someone makes a post or a comment with a Tw****r link in the text, the site should either stop them and offer them a chance to revise using xcancel.com, or it can automatically convert the link to xcancel when posting.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 10:53 AM on January 23
That is very incorrect. There is a specific advisory about not linking to the Guardian's poor coverage of trans content, there is no rule about not linking to NY Times or Washington Post. You're mistaken because, since the NYT and the Post (and maybe Guardian too?) often require subscriptions to read full articles, people posting will often include Archive links along with the article for folks without subscriptions.
Also, I hate to say I was ahead of the curve on this but I WAS TOTALLY AHEAD OF THE CURVE WHERE'S MY COOKIE
The best solution is a technical one that keeps the information for us but avoids sending traffic to Twitter, and in fact now that the site is undergoing repairs this is actually the time to make this happen. Xcancel.com is a solution that works right now. Just as the site automatically stops someone from posting slurs, if someone makes a post or a comment with a Tw****r link in the text, the site should either stop them and offer them a chance to revise using xcancel.com, or it can automatically convert the link to xcancel when posting.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 10:53 AM on January 23
Nothing in my life has turned me against the NYTimes like the repeated observations here of their various wrongdoings. If we banned that website we might be one step closer to moral purity (but not there) and I would not have years of comments in my head pointing out the flaws of the Gray Lady.
Part of the value of Metafilter to me is the relentless observations of the gap between where we are and where we should be, if we are forbidden from discussing where we are then that productive discussion is lost.
posted by Vatnesine at 10:55 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
Part of the value of Metafilter to me is the relentless observations of the gap between where we are and where we should be, if we are forbidden from discussing where we are then that productive discussion is lost.
posted by Vatnesine at 10:55 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
I just didn't expect this to be the one where a bunch of Mefites would dig in their heels in the name of the status quo
The status quo as I see it is:
It strikes me as weird to see on a site I've always relied on to care very strongly for doing The Right Thing.
Doing the Right Thing includes making the right strategic choices about how to use finite resources (which include time, money, attention and goodwill).
I am objecting to MeFi spending those resources on implementing a ban on Twitter links, because:
But I am very, very tired with folks taking disagreements like this, which are purely about priorities and strategy, and using them to imply that the people disagreeing with them must be secretly pro-fascist. Lay off with that crap.
posted by automatronic at 10:58 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
The status quo as I see it is:
- Elon Musk is a fascist.
- Users are already leaving Twitter in droves, in favour of Bluesky, Mastodon and other places.
- People are already not linking to Twitter much (both for protest reasons, and because of lack of good content).
- The already-low rate of Twitter links here will continue to decline as more users leave the platform.
- We don't have a mechanism to ban linking to specific sites, and would have to expend resources to build one.
- We seem to do just fine without specific bans on linking much more shitty sites (Stormfront, 4chan, KF).
- A lot of good content that was posted there long before Musk took over, which doesn't exist elsewhere.
- Some good content that is still being posted there even now.
- A lot of evidence that remains relevant, including tweets posted by many public figures going back many years, and a great deal of photos and videos of police actions, protests, and other historic events.
It strikes me as weird to see on a site I've always relied on to care very strongly for doing The Right Thing.
Doing the Right Thing includes making the right strategic choices about how to use finite resources (which include time, money, attention and goodwill).
I am objecting to MeFi spending those resources on implementing a ban on Twitter links, because:
- I do not think that action will have any meaningful effect on Elon Musk, or fascists in general.
- There are still legitimate reasons to link to content on Twitter which doesn't exist elsewhere.
- Adding more rules here has unwanted side effects on discouraging user participation.
- All of the resources that would be used doing this are better spent elsewhere.
But I am very, very tired with folks taking disagreements like this, which are purely about priorities and strategy, and using them to imply that the people disagreeing with them must be secretly pro-fascist. Lay off with that crap.
posted by automatronic at 10:58 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
Cool, thanks for putting words in my mouth. Another productive MetaTalk everyone. This definitely isn't the kind of thing driving existing long term users off the site in droves. But hey, we're attracting all those fun new users instead! Job done! Peace, y'all.
posted by fight or flight at 11:05 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by fight or flight at 11:05 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
As best I can tell, what the clamorers are clamoring for is to reduce the near-zero amount of Twitter content on MetaFilter to actual zero.
Leaving aside for the sake of argument the practicalities involved, what specific benefit for MetaFilter is this expected to produce?
posted by Lemkin at 11:33 AM on January 23
Leaving aside for the sake of argument the practicalities involved, what specific benefit for MetaFilter is this expected to produce?
posted by Lemkin at 11:33 AM on January 23
That is very incorrect. There is a specific advisory about not linking to the Guardian's poor coverage of trans content, there is no rule about not linking to NY Times or Washington Post.
No specific advisory, but posts that link to the NYT or WaPo frequently get dismissive or snarky comments about why they are worthless sources, etc. It may not be the worst thing in the world, but it does feel like yet one more thing why you may not make that post about something.
posted by PussKillian at 11:40 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
No specific advisory, but posts that link to the NYT or WaPo frequently get dismissive or snarky comments about why they are worthless sources, etc. It may not be the worst thing in the world, but it does feel like yet one more thing why you may not make that post about something.
posted by PussKillian at 11:40 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
So, I mean, to me this is squarely a pile of sand problem. Which is a thought experiment I heard awhile ago and can't remember the context for.
Basically, there's a person and their job is to take away one grain of sand from a pile, and then stop as soon as they take grain of sand that causes the collection of sand to not be a pile anymore. The problem is this, the border between "pile" and "not pile" is very fuzzy. For any individual point they stop at, if someone else came by the new comer could probably still say "it's still a pile, keep going." On the other hand, by the time a new person would agree that there's not a pile there, if they added another grain of sand, the new person would still say that it wasn't a pile yet, so they obviously went to far. BUT, and here's the thing, all throughout the time the person is working everyone's going to agree that they are in fact, working on removing a pile of sand. That's why calculus exists, because charting how something is changing direction is sometimes more useful than figuring out where it is at a particular moment.
So for me, the question here shouldn't be "at what point do we say that Twitter has stopped being what it used to be and started being an hateful website?", because there's never going to be a point that everyone agrees on. I think what we really should be asking is "can we say that twitter is clearly in the process of becoming a hateful website?", and to me the answer is pretty clearly yes. Like every policy decision the company has made in the last how ever many years has been to make it more friendly to white nationalists.
I don't know, I think it's perfectly fine to say "this is becoming something bad, I don't want to associate with it" before something is at whatever the line for officially bad is. It's fine for individuals to say that, and it's fine for communities to say that. All sorts of people and groups are saying that in this particular case: private and public individuals; folks on Reddit; universities in Germany; governments and civic organizations around the world. At this point nobody is going to be surprised if we (as a community) join in that in the way that makes sense for our community. And just like the loss of am individual grain of sand isn't going to make it not a pile, no individual or single organization's movement away from twitter is going to make it stop being a giant social network, but if enough people make those individual and collective choices, that will.
Yeah, we'll probably miss out on content, but like... that's the linear and finite nature of time. We're always going to miss out on content, the point is this way we're being intentional about what we're missing and why.
For me, the fix for folks being scared of breaking the rules here isn't to just reject all new rules. It's taking a look at how we react when people make those mistakes and demonstrating that we're the kind of community where grace is given. The system around community norms is already busted, regardless of if we allow linking to Twitter or not. I think establishing clear expectations about what is and isn't allowed, expectations that include how community members should react to breaches in norms, is going to go a long way toward fixing that.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:42 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Basically, there's a person and their job is to take away one grain of sand from a pile, and then stop as soon as they take grain of sand that causes the collection of sand to not be a pile anymore. The problem is this, the border between "pile" and "not pile" is very fuzzy. For any individual point they stop at, if someone else came by the new comer could probably still say "it's still a pile, keep going." On the other hand, by the time a new person would agree that there's not a pile there, if they added another grain of sand, the new person would still say that it wasn't a pile yet, so they obviously went to far. BUT, and here's the thing, all throughout the time the person is working everyone's going to agree that they are in fact, working on removing a pile of sand. That's why calculus exists, because charting how something is changing direction is sometimes more useful than figuring out where it is at a particular moment.
So for me, the question here shouldn't be "at what point do we say that Twitter has stopped being what it used to be and started being an hateful website?", because there's never going to be a point that everyone agrees on. I think what we really should be asking is "can we say that twitter is clearly in the process of becoming a hateful website?", and to me the answer is pretty clearly yes. Like every policy decision the company has made in the last how ever many years has been to make it more friendly to white nationalists.
I don't know, I think it's perfectly fine to say "this is becoming something bad, I don't want to associate with it" before something is at whatever the line for officially bad is. It's fine for individuals to say that, and it's fine for communities to say that. All sorts of people and groups are saying that in this particular case: private and public individuals; folks on Reddit; universities in Germany; governments and civic organizations around the world. At this point nobody is going to be surprised if we (as a community) join in that in the way that makes sense for our community. And just like the loss of am individual grain of sand isn't going to make it not a pile, no individual or single organization's movement away from twitter is going to make it stop being a giant social network, but if enough people make those individual and collective choices, that will.
Yeah, we'll probably miss out on content, but like... that's the linear and finite nature of time. We're always going to miss out on content, the point is this way we're being intentional about what we're missing and why.
For me, the fix for folks being scared of breaking the rules here isn't to just reject all new rules. It's taking a look at how we react when people make those mistakes and demonstrating that we're the kind of community where grace is given. The system around community norms is already busted, regardless of if we allow linking to Twitter or not. I think establishing clear expectations about what is and isn't allowed, expectations that include how community members should react to breaches in norms, is going to go a long way toward fixing that.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:42 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
what the clamorers are clamoring for
Okay, look: There is no clamoring here. Further, you and another user have the bulk of the comments in this thread, by far, and you are saying the same thing over and over. You've made your sympathies more than clear by now. If you cannot allow others to express their opinions, and if you have to repeat your own, then can you at least please try to be respectful about it?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:58 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Okay, look: There is no clamoring here. Further, you and another user have the bulk of the comments in this thread, by far, and you are saying the same thing over and over. You've made your sympathies more than clear by now. If you cannot allow others to express their opinions, and if you have to repeat your own, then can you at least please try to be respectful about it?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:58 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
I’ve been saying for years that Twitter is a garbage site and that the worst takes come from there; however, I am completely against banning links to it. I would like to think that Metafilter treats people like adults who are capable of choosing to click a link or not click.
posted by betweenthebars at 12:47 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 12:47 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
So, I haven't read this thread. So apologies if this has already been mentioned. I am in different communities that are also discussing this same thing however, and one of the solutions that keeps coming up is that instead of linking to x directly, we link to screenshots of the tweet instead. This solves several problems, but the primary one is that people don't need to be logged in to see it. In addition, we're not sending any sort of traffic to the x platform and instead of signalling support for the platform, we're merely supporting a discussion around a specific piece of content.
Sure, it add some friction because creating a screenshot is harder than just pasting in a link, but it could be a good compromise.
posted by cgg at 12:51 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Sure, it add some friction because creating a screenshot is harder than just pasting in a link, but it could be a good compromise.
posted by cgg at 12:51 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick this thread is fucking vile.
Twitter is a nazi site now. It is owned by a Nazi, features nazis, and pushes a Nazi agenda.
This shouldn’t be a debate. This is an EASY FUCKING QUESTION. Quit the hand wringing and do the right thing.
“But we’re only little, our small number of views doesn’t matter”
Then it doesn’t matter if we ban links. Every page view is revenue (actual or social).
“Too many rules! It’s discouraging new users!”
If a new user is discouraged because they can’t link to the nazi site then good.
If there are too many rules making things cumbersome, fix the damned system!! But in the meantime STIP SUPPORTING NAZIS.
posted by coriolisdave at 1:05 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Twitter is a nazi site now. It is owned by a Nazi, features nazis, and pushes a Nazi agenda.
This shouldn’t be a debate. This is an EASY FUCKING QUESTION. Quit the hand wringing and do the right thing.
“But we’re only little, our small number of views doesn’t matter”
Then it doesn’t matter if we ban links. Every page view is revenue (actual or social).
“Too many rules! It’s discouraging new users!”
If a new user is discouraged because they can’t link to the nazi site then good.
If there are too many rules making things cumbersome, fix the damned system!! But in the meantime STIP SUPPORTING NAZIS.
posted by coriolisdave at 1:05 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Technological compromises would definitely address some of the reasonable concerns expressed by some.
For instance, a screenshot or a pointer to Nitter would provide access to so-called "good content" that is still published on Twitter, while eliminating some or all of the monetary and other benefits that Twitter and its Nazi owner would get with a direct link to the property.
Anything that promotes the Nazi's properties monetarily enriches him and provides him with resources to continue spreading his Nazi ideology. For this same reason, I do think that SpaceX and Tesla links could be easily quarantined via mirror or screenshot — or banned outright — but I realize that this is probably a separate conversation, given how shiny rockets and electric cars are popular topics.
We all can and should do better about doing our part to fight the rising tide of Nazism worldwide, and there are relatively easy solutions to this particular problem that do not impact this online community in any real significant way — other than maybe disturbing the status quo for some.
However small we are, we can also do our part to express solidarity with others, by stating unequivocally that enough is enough, and that we have no obligation to amplify content that enriches and empowers Nazis.
Because if the Metafilter userbase cannot survive when we cannot access content that enriches and empowers Nazis, then what kind of community do we profess to have? Mainly, what kind of people are we? What kind of society are we accepting?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:15 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
For instance, a screenshot or a pointer to Nitter would provide access to so-called "good content" that is still published on Twitter, while eliminating some or all of the monetary and other benefits that Twitter and its Nazi owner would get with a direct link to the property.
Anything that promotes the Nazi's properties monetarily enriches him and provides him with resources to continue spreading his Nazi ideology. For this same reason, I do think that SpaceX and Tesla links could be easily quarantined via mirror or screenshot — or banned outright — but I realize that this is probably a separate conversation, given how shiny rockets and electric cars are popular topics.
We all can and should do better about doing our part to fight the rising tide of Nazism worldwide, and there are relatively easy solutions to this particular problem that do not impact this online community in any real significant way — other than maybe disturbing the status quo for some.
However small we are, we can also do our part to express solidarity with others, by stating unequivocally that enough is enough, and that we have no obligation to amplify content that enriches and empowers Nazis.
Because if the Metafilter userbase cannot survive when we cannot access content that enriches and empowers Nazis, then what kind of community do we profess to have? Mainly, what kind of people are we? What kind of society are we accepting?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:15 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
So many left wing journalists have left Twitter for Bluesky recently, that it is becoming, like Substack an enclave of right wing edgelords.
I don't think we need to ban dubious websites, the fact that it is increasingly difficult for anyone to craft a good post from content found there really solves the problem automatically.
Also if Xitter was banned from Mefi, it would only be logical for the sake of consistency to also ban (or hide) every historical post which links to Twitter too, which would be quite an undertaking.
posted by Lanark at 1:18 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I don't think we need to ban dubious websites, the fact that it is increasingly difficult for anyone to craft a good post from content found there really solves the problem automatically.
Also if Xitter was banned from Mefi, it would only be logical for the sake of consistency to also ban (or hide) every historical post which links to Twitter too, which would be quite an undertaking.
posted by Lanark at 1:18 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
it is becoming, like Substack an enclave of right wing edgelords
Heather Cox Richardson publishes on Substack.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:21 PM on January 23
Heather Cox Richardson publishes on Substack.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:21 PM on January 23
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by lalochezia at 4:44 AM on January 22