Problem is, sometimes I do need to see the content.

If only someone would "just" fucking build a viable replacement for Twitter. It's a weekend's work with the tools now available. C'mon. (pokes stick)

Mastodon doesn't have policies. Every instance has their own policies. That's the strength of mastodon.

IMO the reason why BS just ended up being Twitter 2.0, or 1.2 even, or why Twitter went down its path in the first place, is that the US and EU are no longer producing enough content to justify ownership or continuous iterations of such a system.

Otherwise it wouldn't have been forced upon who begrudgingly got funding secured. Any of then-GAFA could have bought it and none wanted to touch it.

The bad moderation on those platforms, I think, is a desperate attempt to align platform cultures to the moderating entities' standards that are no longer comprehensible to users, if known at all, like a kid on a push car moving away from the park trying to steer it back.

It seemed fine until 2015 or so, streaming hundreds of novel tweets per second per user, many with novel images. Then things went downhill. Musk can't be the sole villain in it.

> Bluesky is founded by the same founders of Twitter and is not open and has ridiculous policies

Huh? It is remarkably open and the policies are not really an issue.

oh the parent comment sounded like a criticism of shitter, not x

I haven't consumed social media or any news for like two years. You normies will figure it all out like you always do

[flagged]

And the democrats were in favor of slavery by that same logic

Assuming you're American and assuming you ever cast a vote you'll have voted for the party which pushed slavery, from which the KKK was born and which pushed for segregation and the Jim Crow laws, i.e. the "democratic" party.

Is there a list of things or beliefs that make someone "Far right"? Is there a list or reason why being labeled "far right" (by others, not oneself) should be disqualifying, or worthy of having your services abused? Nitter and its forks are in violation of the X.com terms of service, which is why they are facing legal challenges. Those challenges may be easily routed around with other technology, but Nitter and its forks are still violating the services brazenly. Are "far right" people beneath the law? Is it okay to steal from someone on the "far right"? Is it okay to commit violence against someone on the "far right"?

Ah yes, you only need to set the label, those who disagree need to prove the negative. Pretty typical.

What is “far right”, btw? What are objective measurable criteria?

> The "left" spans such a huge range right now that to be "not left" is basically far right

Jesus Christ, you can’t be serious. But then again, I am not surprised that you are.

The right spans such a huge range right now that not to be right is to be "far-left". A "democrat" opposing the OmniCause ("climate, migration and 'palestine'") is _extremely_ rare and usually gets excommunicated from the Party, e.g. Fetterman and Manchin (whom you for some reason listed as 'democrats' even though the Party does its best to label and shun them) while on the right you have people ranging from Massey to Trump, Vance to Rubio, Wiles to Collins.

So maybe it is in the eye of the beholder? I certainly see far more labelling coming from the "left" side of the spectrum than from the "right" side although they're certainly catching up lately now that the communist zombie has risen from its grave again. On the "right" the general idea of the "left" seems to be that they're 'stupid', 'naive' and 'uninformed' while on the "left" the general idea of the "right" seems to be that they're 'evil', 'narrow-minded', 'racist' and '*-phobe'. Neither of these general ideas are true but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Ah, AfD, the party with female lesbians leader, right? typical far right, point taken.

Otherwise, yes, I think labeling any party which works within the legal bounds as “far” is dangerous. Because there are legit far groups which should not be permitted on both sides of the spectrum. And we better know what is legitimate and what not.

Out, damnéd xit! out, I say!

> what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is that self-hosting this is trivial then

Yes. It comes encouraged.

> so does that mean I could run my own local instance and never get it taken down since traffic would be negligible?

Yes, unless the other end forbids it and really cares about controlling clients. If they do and manage to detect that you are using alternative client they could block based on that. In times where that happens and there are client devs who care, it becomes a cat-and-mouse.

Because it isn’t magic, there’s still Twitter auth required https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/blob/master/src/auth.nim

Every individual running their own instance would be the equivalent of every individual having their own Twitter account, which defeats the purpose.

Yes all of that. I think it's unwise to share details here, because X's anticircumvention team are reading HN.

Peepee poopoo.

Maybe your cultural values aren't my cultural values. Maybe you need to consider who you are excluding by suggesting that using a curse word is unacceptable?

Cursing has a long tradition in lower economic class culture, in some minority cultures, in queer culture, heck in mainstream cultures worldwide we say "shit", etc. You want them all to conform to your one view of how professionals should be? The curse word isn't directed at you, it isn't directed at anyone you know, or even at a person.

No, I think maybe I'd rather live in a world where people are colorful, use language that's authentic to them, and include more people in the dialog.

I laughed.