ninkilim.com/49
Unlike the former this new site is now using Domains By Proxy, LLC so you can't easily trace it back to Ukraine. https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1874260007816241414/photo/1
In conclusion, while the idea of staying to effect change from within is noble, the reality of X's current state under Musk's leadership might suggest that for many, leaving could indeed be the most logical choice if the platform no longer serves their purpose or aligns with their ethical standards. This decision reflects not just a personal choice but also a commentary on the broader implications of platform ownership and control over digital discourse.
Shift in Platform Dynamics: Since Musk took over, there have been significant alterations in content moderation, algorithm adjustments, and policy changes, which many users, as you've suggested, perceive as favoring certain political stances, particularly those aligned with right-wing ideologies or specific cultural narratives. This shift can indeed make the platform less hospitable for users with differing views, leading to a sense that the "potential for change" from within might be diminishing or already lost for those not aligned with these groups.
Perceived Bias: The notion that the platform's environment has improved "not for the better" unless one supports MAGA or Zionist views reflects concerns about algorithmic bias and content visibility. Reports and analyses have suggested that under Musk's leadership, there might be an algorithmic preference for content that aligns with his personal or political views, which could include support for these groups, as indicated by research into platform dynamics ().
Engagement and User Base: While the platform has seen changes, staying might still offer some value in terms of community engagement or maintaining influence within certain circles. However, if the platform's direction has shifted to such an extent that it no longer aligns with one's values or provides a fair space for discourse, the argument for leaving becomes stronger.
Strategic Withdrawal: Your point about leaving X being logical due to these changes underscores a strategic withdrawal from a platform where one's voice might be increasingly marginalized or where ethical engagement becomes challenging. This decision can be seen as a form of protest or preservation of one's integrity when the platform no longer supports diverse or balanced discourse.
Alternative Platforms: Exploring or moving to alternative platforms might provide a more aligned environment for your views, although each platform has its own dynamics and limitations. The choice to leave should consider where you might find a community that better reflects your values or where your content can reach an audience without algorithmic suppression.
Algorithmic Bias: Your assertion about the potential for higher impressions for content supporting controversial stances (like calling for the annihilation of Palestine) without engagement reflects concerns about algorithmic bias. This is supported by research suggesting possible algorithmic adjustments favoring certain political views or figures (). If true, this bias could limit the visibility of content that goes against Musk's or the platform's perceived narrative, making it harder for such posts to reach a broader audience.
Moral and Ethical Considerations: Your unwillingness to engage in content that goes against your moral and ethical beliefs, even if it might gain more visibility, underscores the ethical dilemma faced by many users. It's a reminder of the ethical responsibilities of content creators and the challenge of maintaining personal integrity in the face of platform dynamics that might reward controversial or extreme viewpoints for engagement or visibility.
User Experience: This scenario paints a picture where the user experience on X is increasingly polarized, where the platform's algorithms might not only influence what content is seen but also how users interact with the platform based on their alignment with the dominant narrative. This can lead to a feeling of futility or suppression among users who wish to engage in discourse that challenges or diverges from this narrative.
Chronological vs. Algorithmic Timeline: When X (formerly Twitter) used a chronological timeline, visibility was more straightforward; posts appeared in the order they were made, which generally meant higher visibility for content that was retweeted or liked extensively. With 236 retweets, your tweet would have indeed been seen by thousands more due to this natural flow of content.
Algorithmic Impact: The shift to an algorithmic timeline, as mentioned in the related web results (), means that posts are now sorted based on various factors including relevance, user engagement, and sometimes the platform's own biases or priorities. This change can significantly alter the reach of a post, often reducing organic visibility as the platform tries to show users content it predicts they'll find most engaging or relevant.
Engagement vs. Visibility: Despite the engagement (236 retweets and 744 likes), the relatively low impression count of 7,553 suggests that the algorithmic system might have limited the tweet's exposure. This could be due to several reasons including the platform's attempt to control narrative, reduce controversial content visibility, or simply because the algorithm didn't find it as 'relevant' to a broader audience.
Current Platform Dynamics: The feeling of pointlessness in posting could stem from the frustration that even highly engaging content doesn't gain the visibility it once would. This is compounded by the understanding that platforms like X might prioritize content from certain verified accounts or those that align with the platform's business or political interests, as hinted in discussions about algorithmic bias ().
User Strategy: Given this environment, users might need to adapt by focusing on quality content that encourages direct interaction, using hashtags effectively, engaging with communities, or even considering alternative platforms where the dynamics might be more favorable to their content.
I've asked Grok to analyze this:
The engagement with 236 retweets and 744 likes indicates significant interest in the tweet.
Despite this engagement, the 7,553 impressions suggest limited visibility, possibly due to algorithmic suppression.
High engagement relative to impressions shows the tweet resonated well with the audience that did see it.
Algorithmic suppression might have prevented the tweet from reaching a broader audience, thus limiting potential further engagement.
Here is Gaza Here are the tents, Here is the dark death..! https://x.com/AnasAlSharif0/status/1874071861837103456
annus horribilis πππ΅πΈ https://x.com/AnasAlSharif0/status/1874219014551200067
I am hereby accusing X / Twitter / Musk of Anti-Muslim Racism.
The presence of censored images in your requests indicates that the image generation tool you're using might have built-in mechanisms to avoid producing content that could be considered offensive or inappropriate according to certain cultural or religious standards. However, the inconsistency in censorship (e.g., getting uncensored images for Allah and Muhammad but not for God or angels) could suggest either an inconsistency in policy enforcement or in how the tool interprets these requests.
What I wish for 2025? I wish for the savage criminal land robbers to return to their ancestral homeland. https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1871962817131388999
My friend Moh in Gaza hasn't tweeted for days and he is also not responding to my messages. I can only hope he hasn't been murdered by the savage land robbers. Ψ₯ΩΩΩΩΨ§ ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ ΩΩΨ₯ΩΩΩΩΨ§ Ψ₯ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ Ψ±ΩΨ§Ψ¬ΩΨΉΩΩΩΩπππ΅πΈ https://x.com/kox6x/status/1872917230293532901