Leave X – Protect Democracy(leavex.eu)
16 pointsby robin_reala4 hours ago4 comments
  • btel3 hours ago
    Since I left X, I follow more sources and tend to verify them more often.

    The alternatives are numerous. Starting from other social media with real governance (like mastodon), through RSS feeds, to forums/newsletters etc.

    I especially like the idea of RSS feeds that allow to content creators to control completely their distribution channels. There are many good RSS aggregators such as innoreader of feedflow (for android).

    Also connecting with people in real world is great.

  • davidguettaan hour ago
    Sorry but I prefer unfiltered toxic content that selectively toxic content filtered by an hidden agenda.

    Also come back to me when the EU president is elected with direct democracy.

  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • poszlem3 hours ago
    It would be much easier to leave the toxic dump that is X, if the other platforms were not almost as toxic just in the opposite direction.

    The best option would be to have a separate platform for the european heads of state to communicate with people that is not as partisan and crazy as X, BlueSky or Mastodon.

    edit: not to mention that with how things are set up now, the people who actually add value will probably leave X, while the ones who shouldn’t be there will stick around and end up with an even bigger, uncontested audience. And their arguments of the opposite don't convince me. If all dissenting voices leave, the platform does not necessarily disappear, instead, it often calcifies into a radicalization machine. They are arguing for moral victory but a strategic defeat.

    edit2: my biggest problem is not that they use X, but that they often use it exclusively, so your choice is to either follow them there or get what they are saying via a third party (a newspaper reprinting X or something).

    • mhitza3 hours ago
      There is already https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/explore running as an experiment for a while now.

      Nothing prevents them from setting up a friendlier instance (domain name) where they only allow registration for verified members, block and defederate liberally.

    • skerit3 hours ago
      Well Mastodon would make the most sense. They can run their own server with their own moderation policies while still federating with the broader network. The EU has actually already done this—the European Commission runs its own Mastodon instance.

      That's really the key point: with Mastodon, you control your own space. So in theory you can create your own little bubble with your own rules.

      Which is basically what Truth Social did, since it is also built on Mastodon, but they stripped out all the federation code—so it's just a walled garden that happens to use Mastodon's codebase. Maybe for the best.

    • surgical_fire3 hours ago
      > The best option would be to have a separate platform for the european heads of state to communicate with people that is not as partisan and crazy as X, BlueSky or Mastodon

      Mastodon at least it not owned by any large US corporation, and therefore not subject to corporate whims of their leadership.

      > while the ones who shouldn’t be there will stick around and end up with an even bigger, uncontested audience.

      Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance.

      • poszlem3 hours ago
        I agree that we should have something that is not US owned.

        > Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance.

        I think you underestimate the influence the european politicians have on the amount of people using X and the fact that they can also influence the american audience this way.

        • surgical_fire3 hours ago
          Perhaps I do.

          I worry, however, how politicians might perceive public opinion if they account the response on Twitter as reality.