A lot of subreddits are banning/proposing to ban X links in response to Führer Elon’s wonderful gesture of love and tolerance. Should this instance follow suit?

Also, Instagram/Threads/Meta links. Same question.

  • Michael@lemmy.ml
    39·
    2 months ago

    I’d prefer to see people screenshot/crop and also link to an archived version or a frontend. These services (X, Instagram, Meta, etc.) often require you to login for a lot of things (including seeing posts) and also block VPNs.

    It definitely is harmful to Lemmy’s userbase to click on these links, but I also don’t think we should create a walled garden. Users can always choose to use solutions like LibRedirect.

  • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.mlEnglish
    192·
    2 months ago

    Yes.

    Evidence suggests that X is a hate site run by a fascist.

    Meta isn’t quite there yet, but heading in the same direction.

      • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Centralisation isn’t inherently bad. It has many benefits from a technical perspective. Remember that none of these social networks got popular through not offering people what they wanted, and the vast majority of people do not want biased or hate filled sites.

        But centralisation does give a lot of power and influence to the few, and so far, they have all been found wanting when it comes to not being evil.

        • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
          1·
          1 month ago

          recognizing the pattern of owners/mods abusing power and no one really agreeing what exactly that entails, will always find that decentralization is the way that it has to be.

          We tried centralization and doesn’t go well. The answer is not to keep trying the same thing.

          • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            We tried centralization and doesn’t go well.

            Well, no. Centralised social media did, and is, doing extremely well by most metrics.

            We can build our ivory towers and feel happy and safe within them, but it doesn’t change the fact that we’re not missed and the above probably like that we’re not there pointing out its flaws.

            • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
              1·
              1 month ago

              Centralised social media did, and is, doing extremely well by most metrics.

              Such as censorship (everywhere). shadowbanning (X), ownership by an egomaniac slyster (X), blue badges (X), and being ganged up on (reddit). i’m ignoring platforms for addicts such as tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

              Which matrix are we ignoring in order come to the conclusion legacy social media is doing well? Be specific.

              we’re not missed

              You are right.

              At the same time, those platforms are not providing enough value for users to stick around.

              • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.mlEnglish
                2·
                1 month ago
                Centralised social media did, and is, doing extremely well by most metrics.

                Such as censorship (everywhere). shadowbanning (X), ownership by an egomaniac slyster (X), blue badges (X), and being ganged up on (reddit). i’m ignoring platforms for addicts such as tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

                You seem to be under the misapprehension that these large social media companies are operating for your benefit.

                A strange notion to hold.

                • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  1 month ago

                  if someone chooses to be on a platform and they don’t get any benefit from it then they shouldn’t be on it.

                  The platform owner(s) definitely have motivations and/or an agenda. Safe to assume the owner is a stakeholder and therefore is not guaranteed to be hands off forever.

                  Both of these are besides the point. The question is, why do people stay on a platform?

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    14·
    2 months ago

    I think it’s important to preserve the original source for verifiability.

    Perhaps require the main link to be to a mirror or screenshot, but allow the original link in the body of the post.

  • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nl
    12·
    2 months ago

    Difficult question to answer.

    • things happen on Twitter / Threads / Gab/ etc that are important/worth hearing about , or at least interesting, but
    • I do not wish to send any traffic to these sites
    • and definitely do not wish them making any money from my traffic

    In the end I think we should not forbid or block, but be much more careful what we share from those sites. I also think it’s important - very important - to make any competing social media much more interesting to people wanting to be involved and kept up to date. How, I don’t know either but we shouldn’t be too strict on eg Bluesky, rather cooperate or something.

  • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
    10·
    2 months ago

    Yes… we should probably ban Xitter links… but maybe allow other front ends? You know, because screenshots can be forged.

    • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      18·
      2 months ago

      Sources are important, along with screenshots. Images can be manufactured or manipulated. Posts can be edited.