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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 days ago

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

    • oxjox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • themurphy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

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

  • Michael@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days 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    I’d prefer to see people screenshot/crop and also link to an archived version or a frontend.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.

    • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      No. Please don’t post screenshots. Twitter is almost never the original source and if it is, it’s only one side of the story. Please consider finding an alternative source and banning Twatter entirely.

  • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 days 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.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours 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.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours 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.

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 days 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.

    • oxjox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      There should be a bot that converts the links like there is for youtube.

  • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 days 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.

  • Riley@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

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

  • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 days ago

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