>...as well as content intended to discourage participation.
Uh? That's odd. In my country I don't vote because I don't feel represented and I encourage others in my position to do the same. Would I get banned for saying that?
Are you a bot from an openly hostile nation? If not, then probably not. But maybe you've already been successfully brain washed, because that's EXACTLY what countries do to undermine each other
No, I read the policy and it doesn't cover what I mentioned. It looks like "content intended to discourage participation" is probably not the best wording...
Why would any politician care about your concerns if you don’t vote?
I’ve heard this said by acquaintances before, but even when someone finally says what they want to hear they find another reason to not vote… without exception.
Whenever the topic shows up I always tell people to vote and that there’s no good reason to not vote if you legally can.
Because due to demographics I’m in the minority. Democracy caters to the majority. In generic terms, all policies are written to benefit the old in detriment of the young, but they vastly outnumber us, so there’s nothing that can be done about this.
There’s a good reason not to vote: you have to go and vote. If I could vote from home, maybe.
I don’t know which country you’re from, but I’m going to guess that the old are catered to because they actually vote and the young doesn’t.
If the younger generation becomes a sizeable voter demographic, then the politicians will notice. A new party might also show up to take those vote, giving them influence and negotiation power.
But for that to happen, the younger generation have to vote. That’s why I’m so adamant in discussions with acquaintainces that they need to vote and that the only valid reason to not vote is legality.
Twitter over 300 million daily active users. 13,000 is 0.004% of that.
A standard drop of water is 0.05 ml. A standard household bucket is about 3 gallons. So the proverbial "drop in the bucket" is 0.0004%.
So, for all you naysayers out there saying this is just a drop in the bucket, it's literally x10 that.
Why, if they could get this up to a repeatable process and ban 13,000 accounts per day, that would be 1.5% every year. After a couple of years of work, that might even be perceptible to the average user. Sounds like the problem is well in hand.
Sometimes 0.004% matters when the population is not homogenous.
The 0.004% richest Amreicans hold the majority of US wealth. I would not be surprised if the 0.004% top X users in terms of followers have a majority of followers as well.
So implying that because 0.004% is a small proportion of total users, this user ban is unconsequential seems flawed to me.
Being off by a factor of greater than one thousand is pretty bad.
If you think there is a wealth inequality problem, I would encourage you to call out bad information, because it is the simplest way for opponents to discredit your position.
I think most of Trump policies(I.e anti immigration, anti trans/lgbtq+ policies) would not have survived on social media or at least on Twitter/x. It would have been marked as hatred, bigotry, racism etc so it doesn’t surprise me we now see the other side of the coin.
At some point it we may get balanced policies but we are still far from that as no party seems to want that yet.
This is absolutely not a "both sides" thing. The owner of the network is spending record amounts of money on getting Republicans elected this cycle (and last). The idea that his social network would do anything counter to the whims of the CEO or his pal is utterly laughable.
And the Biden campaign illegally worked with the previous owner to censor content in order to influence the election and was never held accountable. Both sides.
Trump's movement originated on and proliferated on social media, what are you talking about? Jan. 6th was planned and organized on social media, often openly. His agenda would not have survived without social media.
What do you mean “it would have been marked as hatred”? It _is_ hatred, bigotry, racism, etc. Trump isn’t shy about showing how racist and hateful he is.
> I think most of Trump agenda(I.e anti immigration, anti trans/lgbtq+ policies) would not have survived on social media or at least on Twitter/x.
Then how did he get elected in 2016 with a heavy social media presence and then continue using Twitter as his primary direct communication method as POTUS up until 2021?
Maybe I missed something but I think at some point his social media accounts were suspended. I think may be a hint that the “establishment” didn’t make him any favours. I think he won because the Democratic Party acted like a broken record(and still does)
(I wouldn't want to be in a community with the people who went back to the Nazi bar anyway, so it works out for me. Can barely catch up with my Bluesky and Mastodon feeds as-is.)
I stopped using Twitter after they made it so the only way to avoid all of that was to individually block every single account. I spent a couple weeks clicking that I wasn't interested before it was obvious that you'd see Musk's rantings until you blocked him.
I am fine with content policeing actions from being legal but I think we content enforcement of this nature on platforms that live on freedom of press and speech should be forced to publicize when that take action against accounts. Publicize the lists for bans, and reason for it. Here the reason is given but its not account linked so its hard to say if the reason is justifed with the accounts histories.
Maybe the government needs a meta organization that upholds freedom of speech enforcement from platforms and companies that get broad Section 230 protections. I.e Facebook, X, Twitch, Youtube, etc. If a company can just purge you soruce of speech entirely the country protections seem lacking for the public welfare. Curious what other people think. I know an agency like this is rife to partisan infiltration but if its roll is to for unbanning rather than banning I think the scope of its potential abuse would be extremely narrow.
54 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 7.4 ms ] threadUh? That's odd. In my country I don't vote because I don't feel represented and I encourage others in my position to do the same. Would I get banned for saying that?
https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-...
I’ve heard this said by acquaintances before, but even when someone finally says what they want to hear they find another reason to not vote… without exception.
Whenever the topic shows up I always tell people to vote and that there’s no good reason to not vote if you legally can.
There’s a good reason not to vote: you have to go and vote. If I could vote from home, maybe.
If the younger generation becomes a sizeable voter demographic, then the politicians will notice. A new party might also show up to take those vote, giving them influence and negotiation power.
But for that to happen, the younger generation have to vote. That’s why I’m so adamant in discussions with acquaintainces that they need to vote and that the only valid reason to not vote is legality.
A standard drop of water is 0.05 ml. A standard household bucket is about 3 gallons. So the proverbial "drop in the bucket" is 0.0004%.
So, for all you naysayers out there saying this is just a drop in the bucket, it's literally x10 that.
Why, if they could get this up to a repeatable process and ban 13,000 accounts per day, that would be 1.5% every year. After a couple of years of work, that might even be perceptible to the average user. Sounds like the problem is well in hand.
The 0.004% richest Amreicans hold the majority of US wealth. I would not be surprised if the 0.004% top X users in terms of followers have a majority of followers as well.
So implying that because 0.004% is a small proportion of total users, this user ban is unconsequential seems flawed to me.
That is massively false. It’s closer to 5%. Still really bad IMO but 0.004% is a ludicrous thing to claim
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
The top 1% is ~35% or so and this fraction is rising.
If you think there is a wealth inequality problem, I would encourage you to call out bad information, because it is the simplest way for opponents to discredit your position.
(Clearly this is what I am doing…)
Nah, it’s more like the top 5% hold half. The top 0.1% are at ~13%.
At some point it we may get balanced policies but we are still far from that as no party seems to want that yet.
(I selected that from google as an example of the term but it turns out to be quite a read, of stories from around and before WW2)
Then how did he get elected in 2016 with a heavy social media presence and then continue using Twitter as his primary direct communication method as POTUS up until 2021?
Manipulation of elections is OK as long as you do it with money.
It's really disheartening.
[1] https://daringfireball.net/2026/10/x_once_again_marks_the_sp...
(I wouldn't want to be in a community with the people who went back to the Nazi bar anyway, so it works out for me. Can barely catch up with my Bluesky and Mastodon feeds as-is.)
Maybe the government needs a meta organization that upholds freedom of speech enforcement from platforms and companies that get broad Section 230 protections. I.e Facebook, X, Twitch, Youtube, etc. If a company can just purge you soruce of speech entirely the country protections seem lacking for the public welfare. Curious what other people think. I know an agency like this is rife to partisan infiltration but if its roll is to for unbanning rather than banning I think the scope of its potential abuse would be extremely narrow.
Yeah, Im sure its all “After careful review,”
In other news I just read today how Gough Luis account got banned for posting organic content and linking to his own blog. https://goughlui.com/2026/10/15/opinion-death-of-the-old-int...
Sad but accurate summary about current state of internet is “There is no incentive to be honest, aside from having a conscience.”