Poll: Do you use Twitter?

[clg114]

Never. This forum is the sole domain in which I choose to interact with others. Period.

Same here.

 

[Shamar]

Do you use Twitter?

I am one of those perverted freaks with no cell phone and no social media presence (except for AutismForums, which may not count). You say that is not enough to be considered a perverted freak? I also like bagpipe music.

 

[Judge]

I am one of those perverted freaks with no cell phone and no social media presence (except for AutismForums, which may not count). You say that is not enough to be considered a perverted freak? I also like bagpipe music.

Agreed. Me too! But Irish pipes, first and foremost.

 

[maycontainthunder]

I am one of those perverted freaks with no cell phone and no social media presence (except for AutismForums, which may not count). You say that is not enough to be considered a perverted freak? I also like bagpipe music.

I seem to be in the same club. I like crackers with nothing on them at all.

 

[Gerontius]

Never had a Twitter account, never will. Not a fan of Elon Musk, to put it in forum-appropriate words.
Not a fan of tweets either.

 

[Sherlock77]

... I also like bagpipe music.

You said?

 

[LadyS]

I don't mind some limited social media, I keep it balanced. There are convenient filters that help filter out people and content you don't want to see. I only really use it now to keep up with my interests, some news, and to see who got married, had kids, etc as well as share some pics of the kiddos to family and friends who like to keep up with our goings on.

Twitter though I'm not fond of although ive never used it..but I hold no judgments on anyone who does use it.

 

[Darius]

I use Twitter daily. Gives me good information and algorithm (with banned keywords) makes it easier for me to stay up to date without seeing hostility like on FB.

If by echo chamber you mean having no derogatory posts directed at "people like me" then definitely. I don't need more biases and discrimination in my life. Yes, I want to have full rights and be seen on the same level as the majority group.

I follow some ND people on Twitter

 

[Darkkin]

Twitter is akin to serving spaghetti with D20s for meatballs. Roll for initiative, noodles and all.

 

[Qoyote]

My hangup with Twitter is everyone's so angry and negative. They were dragging me down with them. I've been a better person since I stopped going. They'll tell you they're like that "because they care about the world" but I know people who are well-adjusted and care a whole damn lot AT THE SAME TIME. But it's like it doesn't matter what it's doing to them.

It's why I'm not upset about the Elon thing cause the anger will stay no matter what his people do or if the users are left or right-wing or a mix.

 

[Ella Spell]

No I don't use Twitter or any social media except FB Messenger (with four relatives).

 

[LadyS]

My hangup with Twitter is everyone's so angry and negative. They were dragging me down with them. I've been a better person since I stopped going. They'll tell you they're like that "because they care about the world" but I know people who are well-adjusted and care a whole damn lot AT THE SAME TIME. But it's like it doesn't matter what it's doing to them.

It's why I'm not upset about the Elon thing cause the anger will stay no matter what his people do or if the users are left or right-wing or a mix.

It seems like the mainstream use of it is a venting and gossip spreading platform. Should really change its name from Twitter to Squawker.

I have a friend who admitted he had an anonymous account just to spew and vent about politics and nothing else. Kind of letting it out without judgment.

 

[dragonfire42]

I don’t think I’ve ever visited the site even once. This is the closest I get to “social media.” I have a Facebook account but haven’t logged in in years.

 

[WildCat]

Nope. I read tweets occasionally...hard not to sometimes because of how pervasive Twitter has become, but I don't have an account. I don't know if it counts as social media, but this site is one of a few on the internet that I log on to and participate in.

I'm of a mixed opinion on Musk - I don't hate the guy at all, but I think too many people are blowing his recent purchase well out of proportion. I read a few threads on Reddit about this and...wow. A lot of those responses were pretty critical and negative. I'm definitely interested to see what, if any, changes he decides to make and how it will play out in the next couple of years though.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

Only to look at what other people tweeted.

 

[Magna]

I saw some people now losing their minds because Musk bought twitter. I don't understand it, they say he will allow free speech and that's just the worst problem ever in the history of mankind. Are they really so terrified of free speech? The worst thing that could ever happen to them is free speech? For me it's a minor detail, I don't care what people say. He hasn't even changed anything yet and people are going nuts. I have never seen such a freakout over someone buying a company.

It's because one person's idea of "free speech" is another person's idea of speech that they consider to be evil, dangerous, harmful, hateful, etc and in the came of some countries, actually illegal.

 

[Judge]

The problem with that, is that someone has to decide what evil speech is. And whoever gets that job has too much power, they can just make rules that suit their needs. It's dangerous.

Our judiciary defines the threshold of free versus illegal speech where such speech precipitates an "imminent, lawless act". Regardless of the nature or content of such speech. So if it is perceived that such acts occurred as a result of said speech, then federal prosecutors may begin building a case accordingly. Gone are the days when government and the judiciary depended on the "Doctrine of Clear and Present Danger" to nebulously define whether a crime has been committed as a result of speech.

Unfortunately this legal scenario can also invite a question of what party is more culpable. The ones who commit such speech resulting in lawless acts, or the host who facilitates such speech, or government which fails to protect its citizens through policing Internet hosts. Issues which can potentially transcend both criminal and civil law. I see such online issues as remaining "murky" until the Supreme Court adjudicates such an issue, despite existing offline precedents.

In the meantime it appears that government will continue to leverage the private sector into policing itself, while they may not legally have the authority to actually do so. Unless someone litigates such issues, what you see is what you get.

 

[Magna]

I see both sides of the "free speech"/censorship issue.

I can understand why human beings want to create a (utopian) society in which ideally no one would be hurt emotionally by another person. In other words, a society where no one would have fear of being offended or even have their feelings hurt let alone be traumatized by something another person says. We have laws in place that prevent someone from hurting another person physically and no one thinks that's unreasonable. Again, to me it's understandable that many people want to try to create a world in which each person either feels safe from any harm, slight, etc from anyone or at least create a world where if each person did feel harmed, slighted, etc from anyone, there'd be repercussions and/or punishment for the "transgressor". "Hate Speech" laws are a means toward that end. < These are just some of the arguments for censoring or forbidding speech. I understand why some people have the underlying desire to want to build a world where are both physically and emotionally safe and free from any harm. In a similar way, I understand why people have a desire to want to live forever and avoid death. Totally understandable.

I've mentioned multiple times in the above paragraph that I understand the desire some have for changing the way society has been for the longest time in regard to speech. Things don't change unless an attempt is made to change them. Perhaps we think today that it's an unattainable utopian goal, a fantasy, but maybe that's because we're thinking the same way people have always thought (ie it's not possible to live in a world where everyone is safe from both physical and emotional hurt).

Or...perhaps the idea of living in a utopian society free from hurt IS an unattainable fantasy and attempts to try to quash and punish "free speech" simply will not work at best and ultimately cause draconian harm, a new Dark Ages of sorts for humanity. Personally I do firmly believe that any type of behavior modification on a species-wide level that would require the individual to put their own needs, cares and desires (and those of their family) behind those of everyone else in the world IS fantasy and simply is not realistic or achievable. On paper, that's a tenet of Christianity and after 2,000+ years it hasn't really transformed the world in how people treat each other even when it was in its heyday.

Censoring "Misinformation" has been interesting because of numerous examples in which censored "misinformation" has ended up being absolutely factual a fairly short time later. There's some joke I've seen in the last year or so that goes something like: "[ In our present age ] the only difference between a conspiracy theory and an actual fact is a delay of a few months."

 

[AprilR]

I use it just to retweet pretty art. I don't interact with anyone

 

[GrownupGirl]

It's bad enough I use Facebook.