Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've been a long-time Twitter user. I don't hate Elon, so when he bought it I was cautiously optimistic.

I deactivated last week. The platform is bad and getting worse. It's scammy and spammy. Everything is designed around garbage engagement, so that the X team can brag about how good the product is doing.



I follow a couple of writers on X through Nitter on a desktop browser. These writers inevitably draw bot comments whenever they touch on something relevant to some or another powerful country’s politics. For me, it’s easy to verify that these commentators (who often have convincing-sounding fake names and photos) are bots by simply ctrl-clicking on the commenters’ usernames and, in the tab that immediately opens, seeing at a glance that they post weird single-issue material at an unusually sporadic pace, and often in tellingly flawed English.

Do I suspect correctly that in the way most people consume X, though the official website or an app, this is not so transparent? Whether because opening new views is so slow on a phone screen, or because the official interfaces probably intersperse content with advertisements and other visual crap? I don’t think state actors would be so active in trying to manipulate discourse if the platform hadn’t degraded to a point where their activity isn’t obvious to most users.


Why do bots have flawed english? Seems like with LLMs being a thing they would not.


“Bots” is a cover term for both purely automated scripts, and for human posters who are using some kind of tools to post more efficiently in order to manipulate discourse.

In this case, it’s obvious that a lot of Russian state-actor employees, for instance, are not passing their writing through an LLM, but rather are just quickly vomiting out a comment in their imperfect English. Exposés of Russian troll factories show that a lot of these employees are young university-educated people who only want the money, and don’t have strong feelings for the propaganda they are posting, so they half-arse it.


They're not necessarily bots in the sense of automated accounts but the older troll farms with a bunch of people just clicking away.


It's a full PvP server now. Old Social media outrage algos + paying people for posts further broke it


When I left about a year ago the whole feed was entirely just bot slop from verified accounts. It was impossible to tune or subscribe your way in to a good feed. I imagine it's so much worse now with all the AI generated content.


I just use the "Following" tab (and not the "For you" tab).


I prefer the X now. Unlimited stream of unhinged, unfiltered thought stream from strangers straight into my feed.


A small percentage might even be actual humans!


Is this … sarcasm?


I like it about the same. Maybe a tad more because some people I like are no longer banned or feel the need to censor.

I'm weird though. I like 4chan and find most social media today is too intolerant and authoritarian for my tastes.


Excuse me for thinking you a hypocrite. X.com is about as authoritarian as it gets. They have banned so many people.

Just an example ..

https://fortune.com/2024/09/25/twitter-x-account-suspensions...


Maybe GP genuinely enjoys madness.


If you grew up with image boards in their heyday (pre-2004) then X could feel a bit nostalgic.

However the word filters (to suppress messages) does dampen it a bit.


I mean, is 4chan better than those image boards? or worse? how about 8chan


i mean have you seen Fox News?


Only last week is shocking to me. People were saying this about twitter for like 10+ years as soon as it was commercialized and was no longer just user content.


I am honestly curious what Elon would need to do for you to dislike him. That ship sailed for me long ago


Words have meaning. He said he does not hate him. That does not mean he likes him. Hate is a very strong emotion. Dislike is a much less stronger emotion. That is not all the same.

(I also don't hate Elon, but I still don't like him or consider doing buisness with him in any way)


USAID was a highly effective and efficient operation. Musk dismembered it, leading to untold misery, death, and the spread of infectious diseases. I think this is reason enough to hate Musk.

Also, keep in mind that what Musk did was a violation of the separation of powers in the Constitution, so he simultaneously killed a program which saved lives while he also started the U.S. on the road to authoritarianism.

https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2025/tracking-anticipat...

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/07/01/nx-s1...


The race to the highest body count looks like Elon in first, RFK jr. second, and Stephen Miller a distant third but looking like he'll finish strong once the camps are fully operating.


I would argue without Musk and his Twitter/richest man of the world power, Trump would have never been elected in the first place, which would have prevented this and a lot of other bad things. Still, I don't hate him. (Hate is not a condition I think is healthy or constructive or something I should explain myself not feeling it)


> Hate is not a condition I think is healthy or constructive

I agree with you on this. Strong emotions impede our ability to be creative and problem-solve.


[flagged]


This administration has added more debt than any previous. So this talk about lowering debt is pure bullshit.


An "administration" doesn't add debt - Congress does. Power of the purse strings, no?

I'm not sure what you mean by "this administration". Are you including DJT's first term?

Regardless, here are the numbers per Investopedia:

"Based on total dollar amounts, Joe Biden contributed the most to the national debt, adding $8.5 trillion during his presidency, followed by Donald Trump ($7.8 trillion in his first term) and Barack Obama ($7.7 trillion during his two terms)."

DJT's first term had the excuse of the COVID pandemic. Other than the final year when that was an issue, his spending was reasonable. 0'Biden on the other hand, had no such excuse for his spending binge, which was consistent across his (thankfully few) four years in office.

The "talk of lowering debt" is necessary, since right now we're spending 25% of federal revenue (about $1 trillion) paying the interest on our current massive national debt.

The hope is that a supercharged US economy can raise revenues enough to ease the pain of paying down the national debt that's largely been accumulated since 2000. It must be done to avoid the inevitable consequences.


This Congress does whatever the president wants, because they are scared of what he will do to them if they don't.


I hope you're right, the nuclear option is looking mighty good right now! ;-)


> Musk did nothing except make recommendations. The executive branch took concrete action.

The bullshit is strong in this one. Yes, Musk & DOGE acted: https://www.epi.org/policywatch/doge-shuts-down-usaid


From your linked article:

"Musk has recently said that President Trump has agreed to shut down USAID"

Anything DOGE did was approved by the Executive Branch, as required.


> Musk did nothing except make recommendations. The executive branch took concrete action.

Can you think of a “recommendation” that wasn’t acted upon?


Not who you were responding to:

It is misremembering to frame their actions as recommendations, when they took action themselves, acted first, and asked for permission later. There were infamous public displays of being given carte blanche on the spot after employees told them they didn't have just that. They put metaphorical "heads on pikes" so that they wouldn't have to face questions again outside of court.


[flagged]


Yeah, if it weren't for USAID then the CIA wouldn't have had any cover for smuggling those weapons and would have just given up.

The argument is like saying "criminals used this bank to transfer stolen money so the bank is bad and I'm glad they were shut down." USAID has done far more good than the harm they were exploited to enable.


>criminals used this bank to transfer stolen money so the bank is bad

If a bank willingly cooperates with criminals it is a bad bank, yes.


Not sure if this is intended to be critical or supportive. A lot of Americans supported these types of efforts to oppose the Soviet Union. There’s a Tom Hanks movie about it, for example.


Because they were lied to by American mass media that presented mujahedeen as freedom fighters. When 9/11 happened Americans suddenly found themselves on the receiving end and stopped being supportive of Islamic extremists.


And a vaccination programme was used as a front when searching for Bin Ladin. That doesn’t mean that vaccine programs are bad. Anything can be used as a front


>That doesn’t mean that vaccine programs are bad.

Obviously. But the organization that discredits vaccine programs by being a front for CIA is bad and deserves to be dismantled.


/Raises hand Sam Altman hater over here.


I mean his personal lack of ethics, bigotries, greed, and ignorance is what directly made twitter what it is today. Maybe you should dislike him and hold him in low opinion.


[flagged]


no, X. It looks like K, but the left side is also indented instead of vertical.


[flagged]


I am a minority and like Elon because he gives those of us a voice who have been negatively impacted by the actions of liberals


How were you personally negatively impacted?


[flagged]


Do you assume everyone on the Internet is the same race as you unless you have a negative opinion of them?


It’s wild to complain about liberals’ hypocrisy of suppressing speech while defending Elon of all people, the most prominent “free speech absolutist” hypocrite there is.


[flagged]


I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. People who disagree with me aren't silent. I just graduated college and there they made sure people like me were silent. Reddit is similar. Most of western Europe, too.


Duck typing has you as a Republican.

Sorry bud, but you’re not getting the benefit of the doubt while defending reprehensible actions by Republican leaders that are plainly obvious to anyone who watched the event


I don't know anything about you and I understand the desire to not dox yourself. However, just a friendly tip, the way you are talking about your identity and how it has led to persecution against you while simultaneously avoiding giving actual details about your identity or how you have been persecuted comes off as untrustworthy. People can tell you're hiding something and many will jump to the conclusion that is because the response here would be even worse if you were more transparent.


pray tell, what did he "voice" that you weren't able to before?


you guys won, what do you want?


I didn't vote. I also live in a state that votes the same every time.


> I didn't vote.

As the great poet Taylor Swift puts it, "It's me, Hi, I'm the problem, it's me..."


[flagged]


> What's wrong with you?

I hold little respect for people who skip voting and then complain about the result of the voting.

> Certain states are always red and always blue.

When I was a kid, Florida was a swing state, and Georgia was a red stronghold.

> Are you European?

No. But I wish we had Australia's mandatory voting.


[flagged]


There are videos of other famous people, including Harris, making a similar gesture. Elon Musk supports Israel. So he is an NS member. Right.


"Similar" is not same. I watched the videos. There are ones where Warren does a "ramp" motion, AOC is just waving, etc. If you only look at freeze frames, you can claim whatever you want, but a stiff-armed Nazi salute is a specific motion of the arm, not a freeze frame.


If he wanted to do one, he would. Additionally, there are right wing groups that use the gesture. This just isn't a case of that. We need to learn to differentiate.


Musk definitely did several nazi salutes. Even did it with flourish like the hitler videos. Pretending otherwise makes you look like a sympathizer or a fool. Sorry.


[flagged]


They didn’t do the same thing.

Musk did a full on Sieg Heil motion repeatedly. The other people you mention without naming did not


No. There's plenty else to criticize Elon Musk for.


And yet we’re talking about the sieg heiling which you claim didn’t happen despite us all being able to watch it in 4K.

He’s got the personality of someone who grew up posting on /b and this is what it looks like in real life.

You are either wrong or lying when you claim he didn’t do a sieg heil


I don't know if supporting a country currently engaging in genocide is the trump card you think it is.


My point is that the gesture argument doesn't hold.



[flagged]


> If Israel wanted to commit genocide in Gaza, it would be over in an afternoon.

Not if they want to still deny that it's occurring.

> They certainly wouldn’t be supplying them groceries and electricity.

Auschwitz provided both of those things to prisoners.


What is garbage engagement?

I think its entirely reasonable that an algorithm shows you things that you engaged with. It would be weird if it didn't promoted stuff I didn't engage w/.


garbage engagement are posts so obviously wrong/provoking/you name it that you must exercise supreme self control to not engage with the content. And for some people it is quite difficult to do so algorithm thinks that, hey this is trending so might be i should show this to more people. So this garbage turns up on your stream. I bean dealing with this by straight up blocking such accounts, but this is loosing battle in the sea of bots :)


Person A: Says something exceptionally inflammatory and provably false

Person B-Z: That's a horrible thing to say, why are you like this?

Algorithm: Wow, this post must be awesome, I should show it to more people!


and the sad part is that this is by design. no one who runs the algorithm cares why yo engage with content. engagement = good = money


A better term might be antagonism. X seemed to switch to a system of rewarding views as a method of engagement far above all else, which led to people (generally and deliberately) ramping up the extremeness of their hot takes in a bid to get as much attention as possible.

A parallel term is "hate click", where there's a headline that's so stupid or off that you click it just to see what the hell they were talking about.

An example of this vile genre was someone tweeting about how:

"Teachers make plenty of money, and I think they should provide school supplies to their students out of their own pocket instead of making hard-working parents pay for them."

It was a message _designed_ to get people to yell at them, and for all of that, it wasn't any of the really hot-button stuff around politics, race, or any of the other divisive things that drive antagonistic engagement.

Twitter could have (and previously did) reward all sorts of other types of engagement, but the shift to rewarding divisiveness was just at another level.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: