▲ 687 ▼ "They need us. We don't need them:" The fall of Twitter is making the trolls and grifters desperate (www.salon.com) submitted 3 years ago by psychothumbs@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They already have a platform. Its called Twitter. They'll have that platform whether or not you post a reply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) But posting a direct reply will give them additional attention, from your own followers and from algorithmic boosting. If simply replying to bad actors with facts and demanding decency helped in any way, they wouldn't have gotten as relevant as they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) That's all good theory or whatever, but you ain't gonna stop Donald Trump (or DeSantis) from getting boosted to the top. Certainly not when Elon is in charge of Twitter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Of course, because these already have a whole established follower base. But it can prevent upcoming reactionary outrage mongers from gaining momentum. Keep in mind that I didn't say to ignore them entirely, I said that replying directly is a bad approach. Because the people who already follow them likely won't listen to reason, and it might only highlight it to potential targets to be radicalized. But bad rhetoric can be countered and refuted without direct attribution. You could instead reply to a screenshot with the handle cut out or just speak on the topic without bringing up who is stirring shit this time around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) But posting a direct reply will give them additional attention, from your own followers and from algorithmic boosting. If simply replying to bad actors with facts and demanding decency helped in any way, they wouldn't have gotten as relevant as they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) That's all good theory or whatever, but you ain't gonna stop Donald Trump (or DeSantis) from getting boosted to the top. Certainly not when Elon is in charge of Twitter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Of course, because these already have a whole established follower base. But it can prevent upcoming reactionary outrage mongers from gaining momentum. Keep in mind that I didn't say to ignore them entirely, I said that replying directly is a bad approach. Because the people who already follow them likely won't listen to reason, and it might only highlight it to potential targets to be radicalized. But bad rhetoric can be countered and refuted without direct attribution. You could instead reply to a screenshot with the handle cut out or just speak on the topic without bringing up who is stirring shit this time around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) That's all good theory or whatever, but you ain't gonna stop Donald Trump (or DeSantis) from getting boosted to the top. Certainly not when Elon is in charge of Twitter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Of course, because these already have a whole established follower base. But it can prevent upcoming reactionary outrage mongers from gaining momentum. Keep in mind that I didn't say to ignore them entirely, I said that replying directly is a bad approach. Because the people who already follow them likely won't listen to reason, and it might only highlight it to potential targets to be radicalized. But bad rhetoric can be countered and refuted without direct attribution. You could instead reply to a screenshot with the handle cut out or just speak on the topic without bringing up who is stirring shit this time around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Of course, because these already have a whole established follower base. But it can prevent upcoming reactionary outrage mongers from gaining momentum. Keep in mind that I didn't say to ignore them entirely, I said that replying directly is a bad approach. Because the people who already follow them likely won't listen to reason, and it might only highlight it to potential targets to be radicalized. But bad rhetoric can be countered and refuted without direct attribution. You could instead reply to a screenshot with the handle cut out or just speak on the topic without bringing up who is stirring shit this time around. permalink fedilink source parent