I can't believe our own government still posts on X. By switching to BlueSky and Mastodon, they could take a moral lead- but I guess that's very old fashioned and would require a bit of courage
Ian . I left X for similar , no , the same reasons. And I miss some of the people I was connected to ( writers and artists) . I have far fewer followers now . But we are not feeding the Musk Ox ! And gradually I’m finding the eclectic group I value hearing ! I very much appreciate and have shared your outpouring. All the best , Pen
“What I see is what I have chosen to see. We own our own destiny on Bluesky.”
YES. THIS. It always floored me when people grumbled about Mastodon, until I realised how many people who rallied against being spoonfed actually relied on it. “It’s all empty,” they’d wail, before flouncing off, while I’d be looking at a feed with, conservatively, hundreds of interesting posts every single day. By contrast, Bluesky at that point was a ghost town.
These days, my feeds are roughly even. And both sites have commonalities (not least in being overly earnest, as you point out, Ian). However, they both also provide a measure of control that is increasingly rare and that does mean you can decide what you see. Muting keywords is a cinch. Diving into communities is easy. Sorting lists is too, for when you want to avoid the horror of whatever you’ve concocted for your main feed and instead want to spend half an hour gawping at Miniature Schnauzers and Dachshunds or chatting with folks who make comics.
I get why people were reluctant to leave X. People had fashioned livelihoods around that melting pot. They had friends there. Leaving could result in you feeling quite lonely online. I experienced the last of those myself, having quit X for good in the summer of 2023. But beyond broadcast (and perhaps even that is too much), I find it astonishing so many people continue to post there, as if it’s a normal thing to do. Had you suggested to these people a few years ago that they should join Parler or Truth Social, many of them would have given you a look of abject horror. Yet they are posting on and supporting something that is just as bad today.
How did Auschwitz get liberated? By those brave enough to enter enemy territory and fight. I struggle to accept that someone like Carole Cadwalladr, after everything she has been through, lacks moral fibre or standards. In fact I think it is hugely unfair and insulting to make that accusation. I would argue that she has the bravery to stay in enemy territory and battle against them from within. And she is not alone in that. There are plenty like her who absolutely have not been “radicalised” but remain staunchly and proactively against the far right. Musk invaded Twitter and turned it into X. Surely some kind of Resistance is necessary.
I respect the right of people to make their own decisions, and if people choose to stay on X and spent their time arguing with fascists, that’s up to them. But I don’t agree that they’re really achieving very much by doing so. To compare posting on X to liberating Auschwitz is just kind of embarrassing, really.
Besides, most of us haven’t got the moral stamina for that kind of thing. Even if very occasionally someone is actually persuaded to change their mind, the effort isn’t worth the reward.
I only mentioned Auschwitz because Ian referenced it in his piece. Of course it’s not the same but I believe we need people like Carole, The Nerve, Byline Times and the Lincoln Project who have the moral stamina to fight their corner in that invaded place. What does only posting in a liberal/left echo chamber achieve?
If, and its a very big 'if', there was anything to be achieved by staying on X and fighting their corner, I would agree. As long as Musk is in charge though, there isn't. X is not a political party, or a charity (although these days fighting your corner in either of those is increasingly a waste of energy) its a private company. Something that both right and left don't seem to be able to grasp. As a private company, there is no 'right' to freedom of speech, the rules, as long as they don't contravene National laws, are decided by the CEO - and that's it. Oh, and first amendment laws do not apply to private company's, and every few nations outside the USA enforce freedom of speech on private companies either.
So, what the hell is the point of 'fighting a corner' when the CEO (and owner) of a business could not give one, never mind two, shits what you think?
Musk sets the standards (or total lack of them on one side of the argument, while cracking down on views he doesn't share on the other) whether anyone likes it or not. He is answerable only to the shareholders, of which he is the principle.
I'm always up for fighting the good fight, but when it comes to a privately owned organisation, where the owner sets the rules, is unassailable, and and has no interest in reigning in the excesses of the business, and puts barriers, again as he sees fit, in the way of those seeking to voice an alternative, its a hill really not worth dying on.
I strongly disagree with Ian’s contention that those who remain on Twitter, who weren’t fascists to begin with, have all been radicalised by far right ideology (whether they “lack moral standards” or not).
There are many non-far right people who remain on there, for all kinds of reasons. So surely having a degree of opposition to the overarching philosophy of the owner is beneficial, in that it might help prevent the kind of radicalisation that Ian speaks about.
There are many levels of political awareness. Having clever, proactive, alternative voices present and visible on that platform can surely only be a good thing? If all the many non-extremists who remain there see is far right opinion and propaganda they are far more likely to be gradually brainwashed. It would be akin to a newspaper stand in a supermarket displaying only the right wing rags and never the Mirror or the Guardian. I get that it’s bad enough as it is and that liberal/left ideas are outnumbered and under siege, but it would surely be worse without any opposition whatsoever.
I remember when you first arrived n Bluesky, and indeed word spread quickly with the right wing accusations, I’m guilty of not actually knowing all of the facts, I was also wrong.
In fairness, that was partly Ian's own fault. I have enjoyed watching Ian in action on many a Twitter battle, and he is as bad as the rest of us for launching personal, and quite offensive attacks on people who don't share his views. Right, and in particular left, have been given both barrels. This is not a criticism, we all do it, and then calm down and regret it, but you cannot moan about being targeted when you've said some pretty spicy things in the heat of the argument.
To be honest I've binned Bluesky too. It may be 93.7% less Nazi, and 86.1% less humourous, but it's just as simultaneously addictive, ego ridden and pointless as Twitter was.
Next objective? Bin LinkedIn, it's a toilet of right wing politics, and trite bollocks about teamwork and aspiration. Instagram for middle managers and work lifestyle twats.
Bang on re: LinkedIn. You put it better than me. I would have *liked* your comment, but that would give you one more *like* than me. And that's not fair. Will consider a *like* exchange, if you're interested! :-)
P.S. How does Andrew Kitching get 19 *likes" for such a boring comment? Just checked his profile. He's a retired anaesthetist who does crosswords. "I'm an idiot" is way more interesting. There's no justice. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I genuinely believe EVERY public body (including the BBC), should remove itself from Xitter. The owner is an enemy of the state - simple!
And yes, Bluesky is prone to have: "far too little silliness and far too few gags". Jonathan Pie is one of the few highlights on there. But you should try LinkedIn. I know it's "purpose" is to connect professionals, but the grey, lifeless crap posted on there does my head in. Yes, I'm still on there. But that's so I can post provocative rants, in an attempt to wake them from their fucking, self-congratulatory, zombie-state. See... the greyness - even from a distance - has got me going.
Maybe we need to start a campaign to get some fun people on to Bluesky. I've never done a campaign, so not sure how that would work. But if anyone does, I'd like to put Bob Mortimer on the "We Need You On Bluesky" list.
Second on my list would be Frank Zappa. Yeah, he's dead, so that's going to be tricky!
Third would be David Thorne. He is actually on Bluesky, but never posts. Which is a real shame, as he is an absolute lunatic. If you have a spare day or two, head over to his blog, (called "27bslash6") and try not get pulled into his crazy world. This is one of my favourite posts:
I gave up Twitter on the eve of Trump's second inauguration. It was painful as I had become really involved with it, but I knew I had to provide some moral clarity for myself. Totally agree with you, Ian, and thank you for your moral clarity. There's too little talked about morality these days.
I can't believe our own government still posts on X. By switching to BlueSky and Mastodon, they could take a moral lead- but I guess that's very old fashioned and would require a bit of courage
This was such an excellent read. Thank you for writing it.
I’m with you ,
Ian . I left X for similar , no , the same reasons. And I miss some of the people I was connected to ( writers and artists) . I have far fewer followers now . But we are not feeding the Musk Ox ! And gradually I’m finding the eclectic group I value hearing ! I very much appreciate and have shared your outpouring. All the best , Pen
“What I see is what I have chosen to see. We own our own destiny on Bluesky.”
YES. THIS. It always floored me when people grumbled about Mastodon, until I realised how many people who rallied against being spoonfed actually relied on it. “It’s all empty,” they’d wail, before flouncing off, while I’d be looking at a feed with, conservatively, hundreds of interesting posts every single day. By contrast, Bluesky at that point was a ghost town.
These days, my feeds are roughly even. And both sites have commonalities (not least in being overly earnest, as you point out, Ian). However, they both also provide a measure of control that is increasingly rare and that does mean you can decide what you see. Muting keywords is a cinch. Diving into communities is easy. Sorting lists is too, for when you want to avoid the horror of whatever you’ve concocted for your main feed and instead want to spend half an hour gawping at Miniature Schnauzers and Dachshunds or chatting with folks who make comics.
I get why people were reluctant to leave X. People had fashioned livelihoods around that melting pot. They had friends there. Leaving could result in you feeling quite lonely online. I experienced the last of those myself, having quit X for good in the summer of 2023. But beyond broadcast (and perhaps even that is too much), I find it astonishing so many people continue to post there, as if it’s a normal thing to do. Had you suggested to these people a few years ago that they should join Parler or Truth Social, many of them would have given you a look of abject horror. Yet they are posting on and supporting something that is just as bad today.
How did Auschwitz get liberated? By those brave enough to enter enemy territory and fight. I struggle to accept that someone like Carole Cadwalladr, after everything she has been through, lacks moral fibre or standards. In fact I think it is hugely unfair and insulting to make that accusation. I would argue that she has the bravery to stay in enemy territory and battle against them from within. And she is not alone in that. There are plenty like her who absolutely have not been “radicalised” but remain staunchly and proactively against the far right. Musk invaded Twitter and turned it into X. Surely some kind of Resistance is necessary.
I respect the right of people to make their own decisions, and if people choose to stay on X and spent their time arguing with fascists, that’s up to them. But I don’t agree that they’re really achieving very much by doing so. To compare posting on X to liberating Auschwitz is just kind of embarrassing, really.
Besides, most of us haven’t got the moral stamina for that kind of thing. Even if very occasionally someone is actually persuaded to change their mind, the effort isn’t worth the reward.
I only mentioned Auschwitz because Ian referenced it in his piece. Of course it’s not the same but I believe we need people like Carole, The Nerve, Byline Times and the Lincoln Project who have the moral stamina to fight their corner in that invaded place. What does only posting in a liberal/left echo chamber achieve?
If, and its a very big 'if', there was anything to be achieved by staying on X and fighting their corner, I would agree. As long as Musk is in charge though, there isn't. X is not a political party, or a charity (although these days fighting your corner in either of those is increasingly a waste of energy) its a private company. Something that both right and left don't seem to be able to grasp. As a private company, there is no 'right' to freedom of speech, the rules, as long as they don't contravene National laws, are decided by the CEO - and that's it. Oh, and first amendment laws do not apply to private company's, and every few nations outside the USA enforce freedom of speech on private companies either.
So, what the hell is the point of 'fighting a corner' when the CEO (and owner) of a business could not give one, never mind two, shits what you think?
Musk sets the standards (or total lack of them on one side of the argument, while cracking down on views he doesn't share on the other) whether anyone likes it or not. He is answerable only to the shareholders, of which he is the principle.
I'm always up for fighting the good fight, but when it comes to a privately owned organisation, where the owner sets the rules, is unassailable, and and has no interest in reigning in the excesses of the business, and puts barriers, again as he sees fit, in the way of those seeking to voice an alternative, its a hill really not worth dying on.
I strongly disagree with Ian’s contention that those who remain on Twitter, who weren’t fascists to begin with, have all been radicalised by far right ideology (whether they “lack moral standards” or not).
There are many non-far right people who remain on there, for all kinds of reasons. So surely having a degree of opposition to the overarching philosophy of the owner is beneficial, in that it might help prevent the kind of radicalisation that Ian speaks about.
There are many levels of political awareness. Having clever, proactive, alternative voices present and visible on that platform can surely only be a good thing? If all the many non-extremists who remain there see is far right opinion and propaganda they are far more likely to be gradually brainwashed. It would be akin to a newspaper stand in a supermarket displaying only the right wing rags and never the Mirror or the Guardian. I get that it’s bad enough as it is and that liberal/left ideas are outnumbered and under siege, but it would surely be worse without any opposition whatsoever.
"resistance is futile" (c) Douglas Adams
Tell that to the brave souls who were tortured and killed in Europe standing up to and fighting the Nazis and helping lay the foundations for D-Day.
This is one of the most Bluesky posts I've ever seen outside Bluesky.
bravo if it's performance, boos if you are grimly earnest-posting about wwii.
Excellent Ian.
Lush nadolig llawen dude.
Oogum Boogum!!!! What a tune!
Great piece.
I remember when you first arrived n Bluesky, and indeed word spread quickly with the right wing accusations, I’m guilty of not actually knowing all of the facts, I was also wrong.
Excellent writing.
In fairness, that was partly Ian's own fault. I have enjoyed watching Ian in action on many a Twitter battle, and he is as bad as the rest of us for launching personal, and quite offensive attacks on people who don't share his views. Right, and in particular left, have been given both barrels. This is not a criticism, we all do it, and then calm down and regret it, but you cannot moan about being targeted when you've said some pretty spicy things in the heat of the argument.
To be honest I've binned Bluesky too. It may be 93.7% less Nazi, and 86.1% less humourous, but it's just as simultaneously addictive, ego ridden and pointless as Twitter was.
Next objective? Bin LinkedIn, it's a toilet of right wing politics, and trite bollocks about teamwork and aspiration. Instagram for middle managers and work lifestyle twats.
Bang on re: LinkedIn. You put it better than me. I would have *liked* your comment, but that would give you one more *like* than me. And that's not fair. Will consider a *like* exchange, if you're interested! :-)
P.S. How does Andrew Kitching get 19 *likes" for such a boring comment? Just checked his profile. He's a retired anaesthetist who does crosswords. "I'm an idiot" is way more interesting. There's no justice. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Have a like
Brilliant as ever Ian.
I genuinely believe EVERY public body (including the BBC), should remove itself from Xitter. The owner is an enemy of the state - simple!
And yes, Bluesky is prone to have: "far too little silliness and far too few gags". Jonathan Pie is one of the few highlights on there. But you should try LinkedIn. I know it's "purpose" is to connect professionals, but the grey, lifeless crap posted on there does my head in. Yes, I'm still on there. But that's so I can post provocative rants, in an attempt to wake them from their fucking, self-congratulatory, zombie-state. See... the greyness - even from a distance - has got me going.
Maybe we need to start a campaign to get some fun people on to Bluesky. I've never done a campaign, so not sure how that would work. But if anyone does, I'd like to put Bob Mortimer on the "We Need You On Bluesky" list.
Second on my list would be Frank Zappa. Yeah, he's dead, so that's going to be tricky!
Third would be David Thorne. He is actually on Bluesky, but never posts. Which is a real shame, as he is an absolute lunatic. If you have a spare day or two, head over to his blog, (called "27bslash6") and try not get pulled into his crazy world. This is one of my favourite posts:
https://27bslash6.com/overdue.html
No... this is my favourite: https://27bslash6.com/officefight.html
And Tom Cox is worth following on Bluesky. Yes, he's mainly promoting his books, but he is funny.
Help. I'm trapped. I knew it was a mistake to start reading David Thorne's blog. This one is brilliant: https://27bslash6.com/chairs.html
I gave up Twitter on the eve of Trump's second inauguration. It was painful as I had become really involved with it, but I knew I had to provide some moral clarity for myself. Totally agree with you, Ian, and thank you for your moral clarity. There's too little talked about morality these days.
Sorry, can’t pay I’m in a care home and my sister won’t give me my bank card
Is this a spoof?
Proud to stand alongside you, too!