this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
115 points (92.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44611 readers
841 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

No. Banning any kind of link is bad. People should decide themself if they want to follow a link. Extensions like the firefox extension redirector even allow to redirect to archive websites directly, to preserve sources of knowledge while avoiding the mainstream platform of the link.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Block them. If they have something interesting or important to say, just quote it. Don't send them even more traffic and attention.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A quote is not a source. The news often misquotes people or takes words out of context.

A tweet should be screenshotted with the original link along with an alternate to xcancel.com.

If the tweet itself has a link or mentions something elsewhere, a link to that source should also be provided.

Sounds like a lot but anything less is misinformation, as far as I'm concerned. So much news and memes have been spread where the subject is taken out of context. Hours or days or years will go by before people come to discover the true meaning of something and by then the impression has already been made.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Agreed. At least send the link shared to Twitter then, if there's any. A screenshot is better than nothing.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's always xcancel. Does that not solve most people's concern?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

It’s compatible with banning original links, and can break later

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

Yes please! I'd rather that platform be banned widely

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So easy to just screenshot or something there is no reason to link there.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

It's crazy that you're getting downvoted. It seems, people WANT to be fed fake news as long as it aligns with their beliefs.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Yes please! We're here to get away from centralised content.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I'd support it. If something is worthy of drawing attention to, it's worth taking a screenshot and sharing that - preferably with a backup to Wayback Machine.

There's no need to drive traffic to or engagement with X imo, even if it's relatively minimal.

Same for Meta products really, though idk if Instagram has some defense against screenshots (I know there's other photo-focused services that do, I'm just not on Instagram very often/recently at all so idk).

Edit: You know, given the existence of xcancel and similar services, I want to walk this back a little. People are in here making good points - screenshots can be doctored, and having access to a trusted mirrored/archived source is better for verification purposes while still accomplishing what I'd like to see. If it's technically possible to do, some automatic means of doing that would be cool, but even that's a bit iffy. Maybe something like that Pipedbot thing could work, even if people kinda hate those bots. Best choice is just posting mirrored/archive links from the get go.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Yes. Just do it. We’re in consensus.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Yes, Musk's Nazi propaganda machine must reach as few people as possible. The guy is dangerous to the world. Twitter is a propaganda and misinformation tool now, it is no longer a place for social interactions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I never click them anyway. If the meme isn't wild enough to get pixelated into a shitpost gif then I don't need to see it. Not once in my lifetime have I ever clicked a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram link and thought that the click was worth it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Yes. I think it's ok if people use screenshots of old Twitter memes because most of them have floated around forever, but block all links.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Yes. Mostly because it's difficult to view the full content without logging in, and I refuse to do that on principle. Screenshots and mirrors are fine, I just don't think we should be generating traffic to that site.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Yes. Ban it. No more traffic to big social media. If something is newsworthy there will be a blog post about it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Yes and ban Meta too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes. Not only from Twitter, though. Spotify gave money to Trump's inauguration. So did Google, and Amazon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Yes, PLEASE! Even without the whole Sieg Heil debacle Twitter is ass to use if you're not a registered user. Same with Meta & co.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Stop asking and just ban it already

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Yes.

Add youtube and, facebook to that list

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

TL;DR: Censorship and content manipulation are real problems, as shown with Instagram’s hashtag blocking and how platforms like Twitter (now X) are used to amplify harmful ideologies. It’s a growing concern how these platforms are becoming vehicles for dangerous misinformation, hate speech, and even political manipulation—all while being run by billionaires with their own agendas.

Yes, and I'll explain why (content warning: US politics but the truth about the billionaire-controlled racist media is political)

With the three richest men on EARTH, "Zuckerberg, Bezos and Musk seated in front of cabinet picks" (Guardian) at the inauguration, it's clear who's really in control. We must stay vigilant and communicate on decentralized, open-source, or encrypted channels. Use lemmy, mastodon, and bluesky for public communication and Signal for private communication. Edit Wikipedia. Donate if you can. Be aware who controls what media, and don't encourage them or feed into it: Twitter (Musk), Facebook (Zuck), Instagram (Zuck), the Washington Post (Bezos).

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/instagram-democrat-hashtags-blocked-search

Several Instagram users have reported seeing hashtags such as "#democrat," "republicans," "#jan6th" and "#johnoliver" being blocked, accompanied by a message stating, "We've hidden these results." For example, if a user searches "jan6th," a popup states that the results had been hidden as they "may contain sensitive content." A "learn more" link takes a user to Instagram's generic sensitive content help page. Between the lines: Trump, who had once threatened Zuckerberg with life in prison, took credit earlier this month for the changes in Facebook's content moderation rules. "Probably," Trump said when asked if Zuckerberg is "directly responding to the threats you've made to him in the past."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/04/media/washington-post-cartoonist-ann-telnaes-resigns-bezos/index.html

Talnaes, who had been with The Post since 2008, wrote in a Substack post announcing her resignation that, “I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations—and some differences—about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at. Until now.” The cartoon depicted Bezos, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI chief Sam Altman on their knees, handing over bags of cash to a statue of Trump next to a lipstick-holding Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong and bowing Mickey Mouse.

You know as well as I do what this means and why we use lemmy


"Lemmy is free, open-source software, meaning no advertising, monetizing, or venture capital, ever. "

Given that "Elon Musk agrees with antisemitic X post that claims Jews ‘push hatred’ against White people" (CNN) and trying to censor Wikipedia over his Nazi Salute (SCMP), it's clear that the White South African is turning his personal Xwitter shitter into a tool for the billionaire class


and for unbridled racism. Under Musk, the word "cisgender" is treated as a slur, but not actual racial slurs (AP)

I'm sad to say this is no longer a "conspiracy theory" but verifiable facts about how our world works in 2025.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Sure. Don't need it.
Only have installed for news from some creators I follow and don't have any other presence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Wasn't Lemmy supposed to be for free speech/anti-censorship and shit? Or maybe I got it wrong? Yall do realize there are many reasonable things on X and not just the right-wing/Elon stuff. Right?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›