Not if enough folks think your posting there is a sign you're an ass.
If you hang out in a bar with KKK memorabilia everywhere - and open the replies of any reasonably popular news story on X before complaining that's not a fair comparison - people make conclusions off your presence, even if you're personally there for the tasty beer.
Even if it were true, that is not the logic they cite though. They make up a story of the impressions were reduced relative to the platform's old days, not absolute terms; they don't address the cost of tweeting being minimal at all, almost certainly a year of tweeting would be less costly than writing a rant blog post against X. Many brands just autopost everything everywhere for syndication purposes.
So we know why they did it. They wanted to take a stance against X. They just didn't have the balls to say it out loud or the dignity to leave quietly.
I have never seen KKK posts on X. Either you're commenting from personal experience, in which case, wow, who were you following, or you're going off reporting which would seem to be a bit skewed.
Those people would have long left X though so I'm not sure why the existing people would think that. If you're talking about external people judging them about posting there, no one thinks that, like the sibling comment mentions. People will just think at worst that they might need the reach of X so they begrudgingly post there.
Even if I make an effort to train its algorithm away from overtly political posts, I frequently see all manner of far-right garbage in the replies, often including racial slurs among other nastiness. That kind of thing existed in the Twitter days too, but at least back then it was at dramatically lower volumes and repeat offenders usually got banned. Now it runs rampant, largely coming from bot accounts posting from south-east Asia and various parts of Africa.
Not if enough folks think your posting there is a sign you're an ass.
If you hang out in a bar with KKK memorabilia everywhere - and open the replies of any reasonably popular news story on X before complaining that's not a fair comparison - people make conclusions off your presence, even if you're personally there for the tasty beer.
Even if it were true, that is not the logic they cite though. They make up a story of the impressions were reduced relative to the platform's old days, not absolute terms; they don't address the cost of tweeting being minimal at all, almost certainly a year of tweeting would be less costly than writing a rant blog post against X. Many brands just autopost everything everywhere for syndication purposes.
So we know why they did it. They wanted to take a stance against X. They just didn't have the balls to say it out loud or the dignity to leave quietly.
I have never seen KKK posts on X. Either you're commenting from personal experience, in which case, wow, who were you following, or you're going off reporting which would seem to be a bit skewed.
Those people would have long left X though so I'm not sure why the existing people would think that. If you're talking about external people judging them about posting there, no one thinks that, like the sibling comment mentions. People will just think at worst that they might need the reach of X so they begrudgingly post there.
[flagged]
Even if I make an effort to train its algorithm away from overtly political posts, I frequently see all manner of far-right garbage in the replies, often including racial slurs among other nastiness. That kind of thing existed in the Twitter days too, but at least back then it was at dramatically lower volumes and repeat offenders usually got banned. Now it runs rampant, largely coming from bot accounts posting from south-east Asia and various parts of Africa.
Those are two directly contradictory statements.
1 reply →
[flagged]
X "impressions" are not worth very much
At least half of those are bots.