Daily Mail vs X

I curate my feed. They can promote what they like, I won’t see it

I’m not too sure it really matters what you see – I think I know you well enough to think that far right content it unlikely to touch the sides. The problem is feed of those more easily ‘corrupted’ – even more so if they don’t appreciate algorithms are at play. For them, it normalises views that should not be normal. See also the Daily Mail, but that to my mind is not as bad. It’s the vastness of the content on X, and the unaccountability of what is now published.

I curate my feed. They can promote what they like, I won’t see it

So problems only exist if you experience them personally? Even though you don’t see the problems because you actively  “manage” them out of your user experience, but you then still deny the problem exists. That really is some logical tightrope you are walking, and while wearing blinkers.

So problems only exist if you experience them personally? Even though you don’t see the problems because you actively  “manage” them out of your user experience, but you then still deny the problem exists. That really is some logical tightrope you are walking, and while wearing blinkers.

From what I can make out, so are you, but I was never very good at untangling semantics.

FWIW, I haven’t had any contact with any DM content for at least a couple of decades, Xitter, on the other hand, I find quite handy for trolling the assholes on there, and I never bother checking for any response, it just gives me a certain amount of satisfaction being able to call out people like Rowling, and JD Vance on their personal Xitter accounts.

Even though you don’t see the problems because you actively  “manage” them out of your user experience, but you then still deny the problem exists.

Think of Twitter as being a community of people, like a very large city. You choose to socialize with the people you like and avoid contact with the ones you don’t like. Living in the same city as people who don’t like doesn’t mean you endorse the views of those people. Not socializing with anyone at all because there are some people you don’t like is hurting yourself and the people you want to socialize with, it doesn’t make any difference to the people you don’t like.

I follow a lot of reputable journalists, academics, public figures, sportspeople, etc. on Twitter. It’s an excellent way to keep up with what they’re doing. I only look at the “Following” feed (i.e. so I only get content posted by people I like and trust). Anyone who posts misinformation (i.e. in the comments) get blocked instantly. Twitter’s still really useful if you use it sensibly.

And to prove a point regarding twitter still has value, here’s Nick Cave being awesome

https://x.com/sethabramson/status/1824107625232961633?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg

Twitter is owned by a fascist-curious man-child billionaire. He has made his opinions quite clear, so at this point, people still using it are, unfortunately, enabling his far-right agenda.

people still using it are, unfortunately, enabling his far-right agenda.

LMAO, you think Kamala Harris, AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. are far-right sympathizers?

https://x.com/KamalaHarris

https://x.com/AOC

https://x.com/BernieSanders

I follow a lot of reputable journalists, academics, public figures, sportspeople, etc. on Twitter. It’s an excellent way to keep up with what they’re doing. I only look at the “Following” feed (i.e. so I only get content posted by people I like and trust). Anyone who posts misinformation (i.e. in the comments) get blocked instantly. Twitter’s still really useful if you use it sensibly.

The problem with this approach is you end up only seeing content that align and reinforces your own beliefs. The classic echo chamber. Liking and trusting someone doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda.

The problem with this approach is you end up only seeing content that align and reinforces your own beliefs.

Same could be said about refusing to read the Daily Mail.

I follow a range of accounts on Twitter, including some Wall Street Journal journalists and some Republicans who have publicly disavowed Donald Trump – they are still conservatives, but they are principled enough to criticize what the Republican Party has turned into so it’s worth following them to understand what thoughtful conservatives believe. Anyone who posts misinformation and racist nonsense just gets instantly blocked – that’s mostly right-wingers but left-wing tankies too.

Think of Twitter as being a community of people, like a very large city. You choose to socialize with the people you like and avoid contact with the ones you don’t like.

A better analogy would be living in a massive city and your doorbell going – “Hi, I’m Derek. I saw that Dave knocked on your door yesterday and you chatted and as I’m a bit like Dave I wondered if you’d like to let me in today? Well, I say I’m like Dave……I’m just a bit more edgy. I heard that Dave chatted to you about shagging his girlfriend yesterday. Well, we could chat about me shagging sheep – pretty much the same thing, just a little more fun I reckon—-What! you don’t want to let me in? Don’t worry, Brian will be along tomorrow. He’s also a bit like Dave…kinda”.

Meanwhile, Elon lurks out under the street light counting with his tick sheet, adding another $0.0001 to his tally chart every time someone new knocks on your door, prepping the next one up you might let in.

I don’t get the hate for Twitter, as others have said, you can control what you get in your feed, only follow stuff you are interested in,

Oh, I get the hate. It’s owned by a fascist sociopath whose idea of “free speech” is to let people do as they please, with wholly predictable results.

For them, it normalises views that should not be normal.

Oh, for sure. But you could say that of most media, social or otherwise. Hell, you could say that of this forum even.

you then still deny the problem exists.

I didn’t say that. Rather, the problem is one created of their own volition. If people are reading right-wing bile, it’s because they want to read right-wing bile. People still buy the Daily Express for gods’ sake.

A better analogy would be living in a massive city and your doorbell going

So unplug the doorbell.

If you’re viewing “following” rather than “for you” then this problem goes away.

Meanwhile, Elon lurks out under the street light counting with his tick sheet, adding another $0.0001 to his tally chart every time someone new knocks on your door, prepping the next one up you might let in.

If you just stick to your “Following” feed, nobody can knock on your door except people you’ve invited. Twitter isn’t profitable so it’s actually costing Elmo money for you to use the service he provides, you’re not paying him anything.

@Cougar

Rather, the problem is one created of their own volition. If people are reading right-wing bile, it’s because they want to read right-wing bile. People still buy the Daily Express for gods’ sake.

I’m not sure that’s quite correct. I’m fairly sure that there’s evidence that people become radicalised by what is shown to them over time, especially on social media.

The problem with this approach is you end up only seeing content that align and reinforces your own beliefs. The classic echo chamber. Liking and trusting someone doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda.

Yeah!….damn those scientists, engineers, authors etc that I follow…what do they know about the scientific method….and how dare they align with what I was taught regarding mech/elec engineering…what about the other voices that decree the earth is flat…where are they?

What a daft comment?, I can see what you were trying to say but you rather clumsily threw everything and everyone on twitter into the shit bucket and threw it at the screen.

Another one here who doesn’t see much hate, just posts from those people I follow and who entertain me. I don’t use it as a news source.

Yeah!….damn those scientists, engineers, authors etc that I follow…what do they know about the scientific method….and how dare they align with what I was taught regarding mech/elec engineering…what about the other voices that decree the earth is flat…where are they?

What a daft comment?, I can see what you were trying to say but you rather clumsily threw everything and everyone on twitter into the shit bucket and threw it at the screen.

God you are so right. All those fraught scientific debates on SM leading to such levels of hatred and division in the world.

If you just stick to your “Following” feed, nobody can knock on your door except people you’ve invited.

You do know that this can be changed anytime Elon decides to? It’s just software, not some ancient human right.

Twitter isn’t profitable so it’s actually costing Elmo money for you to use the service he provides, you’re not paying him anything.

Yes, I wonder why he’s doing that. Perhaps he’s just a generous, kind and caring person?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/18/inciting-rioters-in-britain-was-a-test-run-for-elon-musk-just-see-what-he-plans-for-america?CMP=share_btn_url

You do know that this can be changed anytime Elon decides to?

But he hasn’t done that, at least not yet. If he does, I’ll reconsider, but until then, Twitter is still pretty useful.

Yes, I wonder why he’s doing that. Perhaps he’s just a generous, kind and caring person?

He got coked off his head and blew his mouth off, promising to buy Twitter for much more than it’s worth. Once he sobered up, he tried to back out of the deal but couldn’t. Now he’s stuck with an SM service that will never be profitable but his ego won’t let him admit he made a mistake and sell it for pennies on the dollar. He’s an idiot.

Yeah!….damn those scientists, engineers, authors etc that I follow…what do they know about the scientific method….and how dare they align with what I was taught regarding mech/elec engineering…what about the other voices that decree the earth is flat…where are they?

What a daft comment?, I can see what you were trying to say but you rather clumsily threw everything and everyone on twitter into the shit bucket and threw it at the screen.

God you are so right. All those fraught scientific debates on SM leading to such levels of hatred and division in the world.

Maybe a bit of research into Galileo and the attitude of the Church towards science might help you avoid making such stupid snarky statements. An attitude, I hasten to point out, that is very much around today among the Far Right and Evangelicals, and Nationalist Christians. People who are encouraging hatred and division in the world, happily enabled by the likes of Musk.

In some cases there isn’t really any other way of following certain people – who aren’t spilling bile, in the case of Twitter.

There’s nothing new here – we operate in a society where wealthy people control the media. The problem is not the media per se – it’s capitalism’s spiralling grasp on pretty much every part of our life.

This thread ignores many other faulty publications and platforms to make its point and that is a bit disingenuous.

Personally I think it’s better moderates stay on these platforms and challenge stuff where possible.

I’ve managed to get responses from people like Peter Hitchens for example who basically spouted a load of guff.

Where else could I do that?

Not that it solved owt but he did respond.

In some cases there isn’t really any other way of following certain people

And there isn’t really a great alternative.  BlueSky should be the solution, it’s made by the same people who created Twitter, but it’s dead.  Mastodon is getting there but the convoluted ‘fediverse’ approach puts people off, its greatest strength is its greatest flaw.

This thread ignores many other faulty publications and platforms to make its point and that is a bit disingenuous.

Personally I think it’s better moderates stay on these platforms and challenge stuff where possible.

Not just this thread. It’s in “traditional” media’s interests to pretend social media are the root of all the world’s ills, but even so, the narrative everywhere is that proper media is OK, it’s that nasty social media that’s causing all this.

I’m not sure that’s quite correct. I’m fairly sure that there’s evidence that people become radicalised by what is shown to them over time, especially on social media.

mmm… would like to see it if you can find it. There’s obviously correlation (people with extreme views consume extreme content), but causation has always been tough to prove. The other thing is it would be very good to see the same research done around established media – the Express, Daily Hatemail, Fox News etc. In fact, it has been done for Fox News, and the research found that people’s views did become less extreme once they were weaned off the supposedly “trusted” effluent it spouts.

Because there’s 2 parts to it really: there’s the views and content that are published (on each channel); there’s then the perceived reliability and trustworthiness of that content. And where most people do accept that social media just people sharing a worldview, the Hatemail, Fox News etc make out that these are “facts”, and people are significantly more likely to believe it’s the truth – and thus to buy into what’s being peddled.

I don’t think anyone is saying traditional media is fine at all. But traditional media is the same for everyone who reads it, yes they promote the same things, but they can’t focus and tailor the message the same was as social media. For example, as I was following cycling stuff, I would get stuff popping with stories about eu regulations ruining cycling. It was focussed on my interests and a complete misrepresentation. The DM and the like can’t focus their content to different user groups any where near as well to draw people in to the main thrust of their hate campaigns, they need them to be on board with their general thrust in the first place.,

It is nudge psychology, and they are getting better at it, and are using technology on a level that traditional media can’t achieve.

….and there is at least still some regulation of traditional media, even if it isn’t great, it isn’t the unregulated mess of SM quite yet.

The DM = owned by part of the elite who finance this propaganda operation to distract and obscure.

The landed gentry who own most of the land and don’t pay any tax = ????

Poor people, disabled people, migrants, etc. = KILL THEM ALL

It’s in “traditional” media’s interests to pretend social media are the root of all the world’s ills, but even so, the narrative everywhere is that proper media is OK, it’s that nasty social media that’s causing all this.

I’ve been saying this for years.

It shouldn’t come a surprise at this point, it’s the Right’s core MO.  “See everything that’s shit?  It’s all someone else’s fault.”  Which as narratives go is exceptionally compelling.

There’s obviously correlation (people with extreme views consume extreme content), but causation has always been tough to prove.

Again, this isn’t new.  How often have we seen, for example, a mass shooting in the US and then the news goes “he was found to have played violent video games.”  The suggestion that, as above, it couldn’t possibly have been the shooter’s fault but that the games made him do it.  Neatly sidestepping the really ****ing blindingly obvious point that someone shooting up a school might also be predisposed to games with guns in them.

TBH I think that is the principle reason for its success. The quantity of information, detail, and photographs, covering a particular news story can be astonishing imo. I have also seen a lot of very informative and useful health-related articles in the DM. I reckon that non-news articles probably attracts a lot of their readers.

Really?  really?

Its health stuff is lies mainly as is its “news”  Do not believe anything it says about health.  Its got a long track record of lies and distortion

It’s in “traditional” media’s interests to pretend social media are the root of all the world’s ills

I disagree.

I’m old enough to have done my degree pre internet. If you got a current student to attempt to write an essay without access to the internet they would be lost. Further, If I was to attempt to write that essay today without the internet I’d also be lost. I no longer have the skillset to cope.

Traditional media is the same as the above. Most modern journalists are effectively curators of X feeds. Without X and the ctrl-c and ctrl-v keys I don’t think many would know how to put together a byline  Newspaper budgets no longer include flying journalists around the globe and putting them up in hotels for weeks on end to chase a story.

If X shut tomorrow the ‘traditional media’ would be way more **** than a group of needy semi celebs that had lost their voice because they are not really important enough for anyone to seek them out any other way. Or the millions and millions of us addicted great unwashed who can’t get through an hour without a scroll. Modern media needs X so for them to be speaking out is significant

X and The Daily Mail are basically the digital and analogue equivalent.

If X shut tomorrow the ‘traditional media’ would be way more **** than a group of needy semi celebs

Interesting point, and I do agree. But they don’t see it like that: they primarily view X as a threat because it’s “stealing” their ad revenues. Most of the newspapers have seen declining circulation in the past two decades, and sharply declining ad revenue as well. And they’ve seen digital giants generating significant ad revenue, and so believe that if Twitter went away they’d all benefit because advertisers would go back to them.

It’s pretty much all bunk, but it is a very real and driving belief in print/ ‘traditional’ media these days.

Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Is Now the Worst Buyout for Banks Since the Financial Crisis – WSJ

https://x.com/Levitt_Matt/status/1825908170398511323