Ahoy mateys!
We are closing the voting on this topic a couple of days early as the result is already conclusive., Our threshold for passing the motion was for 2/3 of voting members in favor. We have far exceeded that threshold (see below) and have a good number of overall responses, so the proposed policy change has now been approved and takes effect immediately.
Our new policy on Xitter links
- No Xitter links are to be posted on this instance from the date of this announcement.
- Workarounds such as link shorteners and alternative front-ends that resolve to Xitter posts are also banned.
- Screenshots will still be permitted as per the overwhelming number of comments in support of this option.
- Exception: In rare cases there may be a need to verify the veracity of a Xitter post. If this need arises, then you may post a https://xcancel.com/ version of the link. Please note this option should only be used sparingly and exclusively for fact-checking purposes.
We will begin communicating this instance policy change to all our users today.
Please try to be helpful to anyone who accidentally posts a Xitter link who may not yet be aware of the policy change, and/or feel free to report in the usual way.
N.B.: For the loopholers - by “Xitter links” we mean any links to content hosted on X (formerly Twitter). Alternative Xitter front-ends are also banned under this policy, unless exception #4 applies. Edit: The ban also applies to other Xitter-owned domains such as their photo blobstore (pbs) domain at pbd.twimg.com
Thanks to everyone involved for participating in the vote!
**The final tally is as follows: **
- For:
(2), 
(7), 
(5), 
(3), 
(2), 
(1) - Against:
- Local Community: +2.6
- Outsider sentiment: Very Positive
- Total: +22.6
- Percentage: 100.00%
To break this down a little differently:
- Home instance users voted 93% in favor of the proposal (284/307)
- External instance users voted 97% in favor of the proposal (70/72 note: these are not counted, but good to know)
- Donating and vouched for users voted 100% in favor of the proposal (20/20 votes).
now this is how you do a rule change!
- community poll
- exception for the huge perceived benefit of allowing screenshots
- workarounds and tools for when needed
- overall very well written and communicated
others (ahem) should follow the example you provided here!
Home instance users voted 93% in favor of the proposal (284/307)
Donating and vouched for users voted 100% in favor of the proposal (20/20 votes).
At least we know in this poll it is 3.07 instance users votes (1/100 non-supporting, non-vouched and non-mvp users, cannot exceed +/- 10) vs 20 donated/vouched users votes. This is definitely a fair way to poll.
I don’t think pay to win democracy is a fair way to poll personally. Doesn’t fit right with me to give those with the luxury of spare cash a louder voice.
right! the math is crazy rigorous and i wouldn’t expect just any random admin to be able to do all that, but it’s certaintly something to aspire towards
Let’s fucking go
extreme W
It would be nice if Lemmy had a plugin or something like that to change xitter links to xcancel.
It would be nicer if everything had that plugin.
On the server instance level, or the user application level?
On the server instance level, I can see if being an issue if it extends to other redirects, and lead to malicious abuse by the instance.
On the user application level, would be valuable. I use Lemmy Sync and it’ll be a nice feature to suggest.
You can probably find an browser extension or violentmonkey script that will do it for you.
I’ve never seen such a one-sided poll. I’m very impressed.
anarchy brother. we self select pretty hard.
It reaffirms my decision both to migrate here for my home instance and to start donating when I did.
Beautiful.
I’ve asked this question before because I feel it’s best to clarify: does this also include URLs to content hosted on related but separate services, like the image hosting CDN at
pbs.twimg.com?Thanks for the question. The ban also applies to other Xitter-owned domains such as their photo blobstore (pbs) domain.
Awesome, thanks.
About time. Good riddance. I hope other instances follow suit. Xitter is a damn plague.
We lost nothing of value!
Here here!
Get 'em King.
Threativore report filter has been setup for post url/body and comments. This filter will only apply to local communities. After a brief period of validating, we’ll switch it to autoremove (which will provide a built-in appeal option)
As an external instance user, I would have supported this. Notable tweets can be reported on without giving any clicks to Xitter.
Good riddance! (and any other relatable Green Day songs)
American Idiot comes to mind.
twitter needs to F.O.D. already
Out of curiosity, what was the sentiment for those who voted against? Or did they not comment?
I think they could be summarized as:
- Opposition to any form of censorship and/or concerns about “slippery slope” of banning Xitter links - i.e., what about Meta links?
- It’s important to be able to post newsworthy tweets in order to hold them to account and have a record.
- Concerns about fact-checking - i.e., how can we check veracity of Twitter links if all we have is screenshots?
- Some folks wanted to ban all Xitter links, including screen shots and xcancel links, for a complete blackout.
We’ve tried our best to address those concerns in the policy above, which is a bit of a compromise position that tries to take as many of these concerns into account as we reasonably could. But of course some are mutually exclusive positions, so it’s not going to satisfy 100% of users.
Thanks for the summary. I think the rules you listed above capture all but the first.
I mean, the first is a whataboutism so I wouldn’t even consider it. I would have said, “Fine… we’ll discuss meta next but we’re discussing Twitter NOW. If you are objecting because we aren’t including Meta, then you’re not debating in good faith.”
The only people I saw saying no seemed to be saying it because “you should always link to the source so people can find it”, which was rightfully called out for being incredibly silly given we’re talking about tweets here
So I’m going to put on my “devil’s advocate” hat on for a sec, because there is a nuance here that’s worth addressing.
I absolutely hate how politicians and governments use a third party, commercial social media platform to discuss and even announce policies. But it’s where we are. So if shit for brains Madam President Trump makes some sort of shitty announcement on Twitter, I would agree a source is needed and, I would go so far as to say an actual twitter URL source, only because a third, third party (even xcancel.com as currently allowed) could manipulate or even change a tweet. I’m not saying they would, but having the direct unimpeachable source would be necessary.
Given the fact that tweets can’t be viewed without an account, xcancel is a good compromise that can then be drilled down to its original source if needed.
Now, putting my devil’s advocate hat off, it’s a silly argument to vote against. I presume that the rules would allow you to post the URL in a comment or a post body, and only prohibits using a twitter URL as the source.
I was against it because I wanted to do screenshots or alternative front ends for any twitter links. You should also be able to provide an original source for a tweet, like an archive link. I didn’t comment because I knew my opinion/vote on this didn’t matter. Not only do the majority hate twitter (with little interest in fact-checking tweets), but I also don’t donate and saw that my 1 non-donation vote equates to nothing in the comments of that thread. Now the only thing users can do is screenshots, which is pretty disappointing. This and another big mod reason is making me so disillusioned with this instance.
Your first two points are allowed though.
Screenshots are permitted as well as one alternative front end.
The rule doesn’t bar you from putting a twitter link in the comments or as part of the post body.
That said what is your argument exactly?
Yes I read this post. They allow screenshots, and one front end that is to be used rarely and sparingly. I said why I originally voted no, if you check the original vote thread it did not mention allowing screenshots, people asked for that in the comments. It was about banning all twitter content. Also the rule says no links in this instance, it does not mention allowed in body of post or in comments, in fact an admin said auto mod will remove links in posts AND comments.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/16280648
Once we have confirmed it is working as expected then it will auto-remove the post or comment with a specific modlog reason to explain the policy.
Edit: also must everything be an argument? I thought you were just curious.
I was curious about the reasons why people would vote against the measure, so thank you for providing it. I don’t think “being able to provide a source” is a good enough reason not to vote against it since methods to do so are provided, even without the changes that the admins made.
I mean “argument” as in “what is your reasoning”, like in a debate. That’s how we learn and how we grow as a society, by debating weighing the pros and cons of why you have a belief.
Not everything is a disagreement, per se, but healthy debates are necessary to ensure voices are heard and accommodations made.
In the original thread, I offered arguments why screenshots should be okay. Hell in this post, I made a counter argument that in rare instances twitter links should be allowed. But I didn’t only say “twitter links should be allowed”. I provided an argument/reason as to why in certain cases it should be allowed.
Gotcha, sorry, that is my bad for assuming bad intentions. I dislike like confrontations that are unproductive.
I am not enthusiastic about the wording of rarely and sparingly for the alternative front end so I still feel pretty dissatisfied with the new rules. I was ok with not linking directly to twitter, just needed a way to see tweets alternatively like in archive or an alternative front end. I’ve seen places where fake tweets are the norm and people don’t know if something is real or not, I want to prevent that. To do that, the alternative front end would need to be used unrestricted. Also someone mentioned a front end can still be modified (?) so archive would be nice at that point as an additional method.
But I don’t think anything I say really matters by now. It feels pointless to complain about something set in stone.
If you feel like you want to always include a xcancel link alongside a tweet screenshot then I honestly doubt anyone would have a problem with it. The “rarely and sparingly” is just to make emphasize that in many cases it’s not really necessary, like for memes. If there’s any doubt as to whether a tweet is fake or not then I’d encourage you to provide the xcancel link.
That’s great, I am ok with the rules for twitter content then.
I’ve seen modified Trump tweets before (and other people like that) and since it is outrageous and Trump says outrageous things, no one questions it. It’s like rage bait or something? Idk. I would prefer if people said something was satire or not first for important figures. I hate Trump but he is unfortunately an important figure now >.>
Congratulations
Seems like a great call!
Hey, there are only 20 paying users anyway, right? So were no vouchers used this time? And does a person vouching apply per vote or to the person (like is it a proxy vote or a renewable vote coupon?)
We had a total of 7 “vouched” for users (you can see this by hovering over the icons). Once a user has been vouched for, then they can participate in all votes unless that privilege is subsequently withdrawn.
Thanks for the clarification!
(I’ll have to check the icons on my computer. I mainly use voyager on android and inline custom emoji support needs some work still.)
