Threads Introduces Tags, or Hashtags Without the Hash Symbol

[WarmWinterHat]

Probably because you're a nice guy.

Not sure what you mean by that. I just don't feel the need to troll strangers, put people down, ****-post or the like. I also refuse to discuss politics online with strangers; for that, in-person only. I'm also an extrovert and don't get much out of talking to people online.

My wife, work subordinates, and those around think I'm a bit of an arsshole, argumentative and stubborn.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I still can’t find a reason to use Threads… but I have many reasons not to use it.
Regarding X… I depend less and less on it everyday.

 

[breenmask]

Unless Musk doesn't like you:

Elon Musk, King of Censorship: 10 Times the 'Free Speech Absolutist' Silenced Twitter Users

Musk says he loves free speech. His track record says different.

gizmodo.com

Twitter has suspended the accounts of a prominent Tesla and Elon Musk critic, PlainSite founder Aaron Greenspan

Before he bought Twitter, Musk remarked, "I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

www.cnbc.com

Twitter suspensions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't care either way, personally; Twitter and Threads both suck, for the way I use social media. I don't want to see or be seen by anyone other than those I personally follow, and I only follow people I personally know.

lmao those people broke the rules

Aaron infamously doxxed a person and also you]re completely ignoring the fact that journalists impersonated Elon which was against the rules but hen later Elon unbanned them

but whatever helps you attack Elon better, right

 

[DFZD]

I don’t really care about Threads or Twitter or their founders but I was really looking forward to their MMA fight. That would have been the highlight of the year in the tech world.

 

[robbietop]

Can you tell me what it is that makes you think he has balls?

He bought Twitter, and exposed they were actually an unethical extension of the US government's MICC. He and Julian Assange should get the Nobel Peace Prize for their dedication to exposing the absolute disgusting actions of the US government and their friends in Whitehall.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

lmao those people broke the rules

Aaron infamously doxxed a person and also you]re completely ignoring the fact that journalists impersonated Elon which was against the rules but hen later Elon unbanned them

but whatever helps you attack Elon better, right

You're a Free Speech Absolutist, or you're not. There is no in-between.

I don't care one way or the other about Elon or Twitter, I just think he is a massive hypocrite.

 

[breenmask]

You're a Free Speech Absolutist, or you're not. There is no in-between.

I don't care one way or the other about Elon or Twitter, I just think he is a massive hypocrite.

You broke the rules, or you didn't. There is no in between.

I don't care what Elon believes. I just think rules are meant to be followed.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

You broke the rules, or you didn't. There is no in between.

I don't care what Elon believes. I just think rules are meant to be followed.

He writes the rules, and he wrote said rule after the fact to justify his anti-free speech stance.

Just another run-of-the-mill hypocrite that gets a free pass.

 

[i-John]

No. Meta has already said it's well over 100m MAUs and most of the brands have left Twitter for Threads.

What is positive for everyone is that Threads will soon integrate with ActivityPub. So whether you use Mastodon, Threads or some other app you will be able to talk to each other via an open standard.

They only have a total of 140m or so total users, so very much doubt 100m of them are active. They got the initial bump when it was new and pushed their Instagram users over. Once you're there, you can't delete it without deleting your whole Instagram profile, so that's why they can always claim high numbers. Threads is a joke.

 

[i-John]

You broke the rules, or you didn't. There is no in between.

I don't care what Elon believes. I just think rules are meant to be followed.

There is a difference under law though. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter/X and the rest all have special legal protections as being a platform and not a content creator. It means they can't be sued illegal content on their platform, as long as they take steps to remove anything illegal when found or notified. It states since they are the platform and not the user and they don't censor, they can't be held responsible for the content when posted. When they do censor or decide what can or can't be seen, that is content creation and therefore should not have those protections.

They also have now moved into a position of influence, where they influence what people see as information and news. Like a news agency or tv channel, if they are to present news, they cannot be biased and block information from being reported.
You can point to the likes of Fox News, which has their right wing hosts, and CNN/MSNBC with their left wing hosts. These shows are clearly opinion shows, not specifically reporting news. They add opinion to news. They don't fall under the same umbrella, as long as their news shows don't. Now it can be argued that none of even the news shows are that anymore. I wouldn't disagree.
When the federal government and said platforms work together to silence voices they disagree with, it's no longer "the rules", it's illegal. If you're fine with that, then you're a major part of the problem in this country.

You can't claim to be free speech and be fine with censorship by anyone. You can't use the "private company, they can do what they want" excuse. A news company can't, they legally have a responsibility to report, not pick and choose what to report. Social media platforms have reached that same responsibility. As a platform, not the content creator, they don't get to choose what is wrong or right. That is up to the user. Of course, SCOTUS has ruled exceptions to free speech with "fighting words", but as we have seen with people today, their interpretation of what this is has been weaponized.

 

[Jimbonatius]

lmao those people broke the rules

Aaron infamously doxxed a person and also you]re completely ignoring the fact that journalists impersonated Elon which was against the rules but hen later Elon unbanned them

but whatever helps you attack Elon better, right

Which journalists?

 

[breenmask]

He writes the rules,

and follow it or leave. not hard to do.

 

[breenmask]

There is a difference under law though.

not really talking about the law. talking about why some of those people got banned. X's rules and the law are obviously different.

 

[breenmask]

Which journalists?

sorry, my mistake. I meant journalists posted elonjet data. plenty of reports on this so I don't really need to post a link do I?

 

[svish]

Interesting to see similar features

 

[kc9hzn]

Let’s see if I understand this correctly? You have to create a tag or select a word to use as a tag? In other words, your message composition isn’t plain text, right? You have to interact with a UI element for setting the tag to make your post have a tag? Part of the popularity of hashtags seem to have been how lightweight they are, and these Tags are not lightweight, at least in terms of the user interaction model. And you have to use tags to ensure that your posts are displayed in the search results? Doesn’t seem like that should be necessary, seems like it should all be plain text. Functionally, this seems like a terrible implementation, and I expect it won’t get that much traction.