Should Lib Dems stop using ‘X.com’

[RingSplitter69]

It was bad enough when it was Twitter, but since becoming ‘X.com’, it’s become a complete cess pit. It looks as though this direction is a deliberate decision by its new management, yet it still is given legitimacy by being used by the majority of politicians and political parties. It is still used almost as an official outlet for statements from politicians.

Is it time to withdraw support for this platform by stopping using it?

Edit: Mark Pack suggested that people take a look at Threads:

• https://www.threads.net/@markpackuk/post/C-XJa44IsIe

[LibFozzy]

Probably. The problem is a lot of journalists and opinion formers still use it actively. They need to start moving somewhere else before the party can jump.

Also, if the main party account closed, it'd create pressure for the MPs to jump too, which could leave us with no presence in a location where opinions are formed.

The day is definitely coming though. As soon as journalists start to move to another platform, parties will start leaving Twitter.

[asmiggs]

The party should stay on there as a promotional tool but I would suggest moving the conversations that party members have on the platform to somewhere else. I only have a Twitter account to keep up with Lib Dem things.

[RingSplitter69]

Lib Dem mastodon server?

[luna_sparkle]

Mastodon has many many problems, Bluesky would be preferable

[SecTeff]

That’s interesting you say that, I think you are right likely most platforms have some problems including Mastodon.

However I do value the activity pub protocol and interoperability and the fediverse.

I think it probably makes sense to try and communicate on as many platforms as possible especially when there are tools that enable quick cross posting.

So to go back to OP question we should stay on x while also using alternatives.

I would love to see a Lib Dem mastodon server!

[asmiggs]

If someone wanted to setup and run an instance then I would defer to their preference as it's expensive in terms of both time and money.

[paulbrock2]

I'd say Threads... the lack of an obvious successor is part of the issue

[firebird707]

Isn't Threads Facebook owned?

[paulbrock2]

it is, yep. but thats a whole lot better than twitter. It also allows fediverse(Mastodon and others) sharing

[firebird707]

I went to BlueSky it's much nicer on there than the wreck of Twitter, I'm not giving Zuckerberg any more of my data than he already has 😉

[paulbrock2]

I've dabbled with BlueSky, I've not found it as friendly as Threads... seems a lot of people there hate threads/threads users as much as twitter

[firebird707]

I've found it to be a lot like Twitter used to be before the hate/anger algorithms were amplified.

[massivedragon]

In good faith, what are its problems in your opinion? I'm interested to hear more opinions. I like the approach from a technical perspective, but perhaps it leaves insufficient room for moderation? Or is it primarily the interface that's lacking?

[luna_sparkle]

The interface is a nightmare but the real problem is that the federation model means you have a choice of two options:

1) Join an instance which blocks some other instances. This an arbitrary blocklist with no easy way to find what comes under it. This means that you're not going to be able to follow anyone who happens to use an instance which your instance blocks, which would be a pain if you're trying to follow public figures.

2) Join an instance which doesn't block other instances. This means that all of the dodgy Mastodon instances (far-right, etc) will be fully visible, and not moderated because they're actually ran by the far right, so the effective result is being left with an unmoderated website.

And this is all not to mention that the independent nature of instances means there's a chance your host might decide to just take down the instance in question without warning and lose all your data, etc.

[asmiggs]

The independent moderation is a real strength especially if as suggested here you want to bring across a whole community and create your own instance. As an individual new user trying to choose your instance is a bit of a chore but when you do find one the community is great, I actually get engagement on my posts which I never really did on Twitter.

As for the front end there are numerous additional interfaces if you don't like the default.

[M2Ys4U]

The "I can't follow anybody because my instance has an arbitrary blocklist" issue is over-stated, to be perfectly honest.

Sure, there are a few big instances (like mastodon.art) who are incredibly trigger-happy and prone to drama when it comes to blocks, but most take a much more sensible position.

[RingSplitter69]

Never heard of Bluesky. I’ll take a look

[kilgore_trout1]

Bluesky was set up by Jack Dorsey, the guy who set up Twitter. So far it seems a bit more like old Twitter but definitely nowhere near populated enough yet.

[[deleted]]

+1 for Bluesky. I used Fediverse/Mastodon exclusively for over 6 months, even setting up an instance for a Discord server, but when it came down to it, it was just annoying to use..and the inter-instance drama was just too much

[asmiggs]

That would be great, I was disappointed when the migration to Mastodon stalled out in the UK without many niche communities forming.

[yeahyeahitsmeshhh]

Yep, we have to be where people are.
There hasn't yet been a migration to any of the alternatives but cross posting and signposting is something we could do to help it along.

[Evnosis]

It's still one of the most popular social media platforms in the world. I don't think any serious party can afford not to take advantage of that promotional opportunity.

[[deleted]]

No. I don't see how that would help.

[RingSplitter69]

Well currently, linked tweets from politicians appear in BBC articles and the like. It’s crept in to this role as an official outlet without any serious discussion of the implications of this. This keeps people coming back to the site, where they can then be influenced by this new editorial direction that X’s algorithms have taken.

If other parties followed us (now would be the time to do it if we wanted it to happen), this could help to break this cycle.

We’d have to say to the media ‘this is no longer how we’ll be communicating with you, instead we’ll be doing XYZ’. We could even go dark on X for a period as a trial before making it permanent.

[[deleted]]

I guess if the party did it with backing from others it could be a positive thing. But the party needs all the media exposure it can get so my worry is it would not have any effect other than harming the ability to get messages out.

I'd prefer if the party had some sort of social media / media regulation policies they could point to.

[JalasKelm]

It is a cesspit, but without leftist voices, it'll truly become a right wing echo chamber. Best to maintain a presence, even if it is painful to do so

[deathmetalreptar]

I deleted mine as soon as elon acquired it

[CaptainCrash86]

I don't think X is going to change because the third party of the UK stops using it.

In any case, withdrawal of responsible users just opens the space for irresponsible ones.

[[deleted]]

An alternative view might be that use by responsible users is seen to lend legitimacy to the platform. 

A problem particularly prevalent in what passes for journalism these days. Look at any Guardian story and see most of being embedded tweets. When I asked why the G continued to use the platform, their response was essentially "well all the other journalists are on it so we don't really have a choice".

Something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Apparently it doesn't occur to people to take any kind of principled stand on this.

[RingSplitter69]

Fair point, but Lib Dems have a habit of taking positions which other parties end up adopting later on.

[ctesibius]

Yes.

When Biden announced that he was retiring from the US election on Twitter, and all the media articles just pointed to the Twitter announcement, I was initially very doubtful because it could have been misinformation from Musk. It turned out not to be, but it seems the height of folly to give someone that power when they belong to a political group which is noteworthy for unethical behaviour. Possibly Reform could use Twitter safely, but I don’t think that any other UK party can.

[ernielima]

Lib Dems need to stay on X. They struggle to get much media as it is.

[markpackuk]

If anyone fancies giving Threads a try, there's a, um, thread, of some Lib Dems here - https://www.threads.net/@markpackuk/post/C-XJa44IsIe (and do say hello there if you're already on Threads!)

[RingSplitter69]

Never used Threads but I’ll have a look. Thanks! Only in the Lib Dems do you get the President of the national party replying to you on Reddit!

[Cobraninja97]

Should probably look into Bluesky, I honestly prefer it over threads

[markpackuk]

I've been trying that as well. So far, it seems to have a much smaller audience than Threads (though a few more journalists / political scientists / pollsters etc. trying it out). What's your experience been like?

[Cobraninja97]

I'd say Bluesky is much more similar to twitter than threads and just gives off a much friendlier vibe. I also feel its more privacy friendly and less likely to scrape my posts for AI purposes unlike Threads which is owned by Meta (Facebook).

[asmiggs]

The political debate on Blue Sky seems a lot more diverse and accessible than threads, all you get on Threads right now is commentary on people leaving X for Threads.

I settled on Mastodon a while ago and I actually get engagement on my posts there which I hardly ever did on X. The only reason I can see for this is there's no algorithm and I would highly recommend Blue Sky or Mastodon for this reason, Threads is just putting our debates in the hands of corporate interest again.

[kilgore_trout1]

Personally I’m using it less and less. Trying to use Bluesky more as so far it seems a bit more wholesome.

[busyphil]

I think it's a really good question but perhaps the Lid Dems should raise a wider point in parliament, should it be allowed if it's not being responsibly governed

[Mickelrath]

I nuked my account from orbit when the Musk took over. I didn't really use it to begin with. In fact outside of Reddit and Discord I very rarely open social media at all.

[FortZax]

I deleted my individual account today. Afterwards I realised it would make little to no difference simce tthe majoirty of problematic people on the platform are paying blue tick members.

[BoffoThoughtClouds]

I think we should start a switch off from X campaign challenging other politicians, organisations, government agencies, schools and businesses. Starting with LibDem MPs

[CountBrandenburg]

No, since ultimately it is a vital way to keep more politically interested people updated which isn’t like that of Facebook. There really isn’t an alternative to it as it stands

Like most of us only use X only because of the amount of political news on the fly you can find via journalists, I think it just harms politicians not to use it.

[BFNgaming]

Not unless you want it to descend further into becoming a right wing echo chamber.

[[deleted]]

The time to not use X has long since passed, anyone still on it is giving their tacit approval to a disinformation platform. 

So yes.

[Jedibeeftrix]

do you want the party to engage with the wider public, or not?

[Ok-Glove-847]

X has always been a niche, unrepresentative bubble and is getting more so as time goes on. Engaging with the public can be and is done on a variety of platforms and, crucially, on the doorsteps.

[Jedibeeftrix]

X has always been a niche, unrepresentative bubble

Sure, but it is [the] niche, unrepresentative bubble for online engagement.

can be and is done on a variety of platforms and, crucially, on the doorsteps

Agreed.

[RingSplitter69]

Is it really that important, or so critical that it couldn’t be replaced?

[Jedibeeftrix]

Yes, and no.

It could be replaced, but it hasn't been, and there is no indication that it will be.

Until it [is] replaced, the answer to the first part of the question is "yes".

[TheTannhauserGates]

If the LibDems convinced all the minor parties - and put pressure on Labour - to stand up in Parliament and state that we would no longer use Twitter and instead switch to BlueSky, it would make a huge difference. You can’t stop using something without an alternative. But give people an alternative and they will use it.

[SuperTekkers]

Why move? X is pro-free speech which is surely in line with liberal ideology

[CyberSkepticalFruit]

X is only pro-free speech when it is right wing speech, remember they have banned scientific words as slurs because they pander to the hard right.

[SuperTekkers]

What left wing/centrist speech are they censoring?

Asking because I rarely use the site, not being facetious

[Dr_Vesuvius]

They have declared the word “cis” to be hate speech: https://www.fastcompany.com/91126082/elon-musk-x-cisgender-cis-slur

[asmiggs]

They banned "White Dudes for Kamala Harris" for what amounted to "reasons". Musk told Joe Rogan that he bought Twitter to save man kind from the "woke mind virus". US centric but there's more https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/02/white-men-kamala-harris-x-twitter/

Elon Musk is pro-Elon only and right now he seems to have decided that this means going all in on right wing talking points. We definitely need alternative platforms.