Hacker News

I live in IdahoI know loads of people and family who I would have bet would reject what is happening in today’s Republican Party but man was I wrong. With very few exceptions they gobble it up.

But since when did using a business's product come to require sharing (or not sharing) political views with the business's owner? Seems to me that this is what has changed.

PS. It's amazing to me, and worrying, the anger and vituperation this position is provoking. It was once almost consensus. To take the obvious parallel, buying a newspaper did not imply agreement with the reactionary press baron who owned it.

Yeah Elon was my hero for a long time. He had a terafab announcement talk the other day and the concept is very exciting so I started watching it, but I just couldn’t get past the first five minutes because well… he’s a Nazi.

We do not need help understanding why rhetoric like that is ugly.

My issue with comments like this is that they substitute moral sorting for understanding. Their main effect is to provoke disgust, identify the villain, and let readers affirm that they are on the right side. That emotional reaction is sincere.

It also shrinks the debate space for real understanding and real debate, because once a thread is framed that way, disagreement starts to look like sympathy and nuance starts to look like evasion. The tribalism kicks in and polarization continues.

The more useful discussion is what exactly is being signaled here, why it is being signaled now, who it is meant to reach, what norms it is testing, and what response that calls for.

This is not the America I know and love. You must remember that Musk is a foreigner (South African, and did not immigrate as a child with his parents in pursuit of the American dream) as is Murdoch (Fox News). They are in the business of making profits here, and do not share our values. I despise both men, because they did not honor American values, and amplified a minority that does nto represent the America we all love

Politics is all-encompassing. You don’t get to declare your beliefs privileged and above contestation. We always have to fight these battles.

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

> I find it deeply dismaying that people consider that "just politics" or that opposing it is "ideological". We can argue all day about the proper rate of corporate taxation or debate the best way to implement environmental regulations, and I will not consider you a bad person if you disagree with me. But the kind of crap coming out of that guy? That's beyond politics.

Elon's behavior is truly disgraceful, but spouting dumb shit is not "beyond politics".

Well, all of these are politics and ideology. It's OK to have an ideological bent of some sort or other. You can indeed be highly intolerant of those who are intolerant in certain ways. You can hate certain kinds of hate. And you can call out greedy callous bastards wherever you see them. It's basically being discerning.

What do you mean _exactly_? Covering your statement is a shroud of vagueness doesn’t help form an opinion, only infuse more polarisation

That too would very likely be seen as deeply political.

Whenever I see X used, I wonder if the author will return to replace the variable with the actual name.

I was thinking of X11 as well, but did not feel old - until I read your text. ;)

My favourite microblogging platform is way.land

Probably more reasonable.

I'm not sure why xorg exists if their sole purpose is to kill x. As per the many posts by their developers.

You're aging well

I remember being dazzled by Xeyes.

I had the exact same experience.

I get really really tired at the back and forth with Wayland and all that, but I would put up with reading rants about windowing systems everyday if it meant I never had to think about this X again.

The EFF is and has always been a political activist organization.

Of course they care about ideological concerns.

I had the opposite impression, that this decision was primarily economic in nature. People (or at least the sort of people interested in the EFF) simply aren't on X/Twitter anymore, and so it's not worth posting there.

freedom is intersectional. it's hard to fight for freedom while supporting those that actively limit the freedom of others, especially when the amount of impressions are no longer worth doing it for

Yes to be honest the "But You're Still on Facebook and TikTok?" part is not really convincing. It's like they dislike Musk but miss the boat to quit for just this reason.

On the other hand I don't think have ever seen their posts on X, I mostly hear about them via their mailing list.

I didn't see that in the post. The thesis is pretty clear and aligned with EFF as a non-profit that has to allocate resources strategically:

> To put it bluntly, an X post today receives less than 3% of the views a single tweet delivered seven years ago.

and

> Our presence on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok is not an endorsement. We've spent years exposing how these platforms suppress marginalized voices, enable invasive behavioral advertising, and flag posts about abortion as dangerous. We’ve also taken action in court, in legislatures, and through direct engagement with their staff to push them to change poor policies and practices.

It's pretty clear that all these platforms have various problems within EFF's purview, but the difference with X is that they're not getting value from using it.

They would also leave TikTok and Instagram as well if it would be pure ideological reasoning.

It's not even ideological concerns about the platform but about the userbase. TikTok and Instagram have a lot of left-wing people on them, as they've alluded to, regardless of who owns those. Twitter users are too right-wing for them.

Agreed. The fact that their Threads account[0] is still active (remember that site? yeah, me neither, I had forgotten it existed until I saw it linked on eff.org's socials page) makes it clear that the opening statement about "the numbers not working out" is deceptive.

You have to scroll down a bit further to find their real reason for preferring those sites:

> people of color, queer folks, activists, and organizers use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day

[0] https://www.threads.com/@efforg

I completely agree. Calling X ineffective when they get 10k views per post there, but staying on BlueSky and Mastodon, where there is no way they see those numbers, is absurd on its face. Meanwhile they are happily on a platform hosted in China and legally answerable to the CCP, so they can’t admit it’s for ideological reasons because how would they explain how their ideology embraces that regime.

Where did you read that in their post?

Because what I read is that their X posts are getting only 3% of the engagement compared to pre-Musk Twitter.

The post insinuates that's because the platform intentionally down-ranks posts for ideological purposes.

Check out the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, they support anonymity, privacy and free expression:

https://www.fire.org/

Ah yes, a non-profit reaching out to a broader audience for its activism is clearly a "certain ideological concern" separate from their core mission.

They also mention that tweets today get far less engagement than they once did.

[flagged]

They're the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Of course they're ideological. That's the whole point of their existence.

Anyway,

> Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes. Many users left. Today we're joining them.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x

Yes, EFF is a civil liberties group and always has been, which makes it a purely ideological movement.

Let's be honest and look at the engagement numbers of the post announcing this:

X post: 124 comments, 79 reblogs, and 337 likes

BlueSky post: 245 comments, 1400 reblogs, and 6.2K likes

Mastodon post: 403 reposts, 458 likes

These numbers, combined with the facts that Mastodon and BlueSky are aligned with internet freedoms while X is strongly aligned against internet freedoms, make for a clear-and-cut case that it's past time to leave the platform.

The reach and impressions on Twitter are fake though, and posts containing links are suppressed.

(Of course the EFF are ideological, that's their entire purpose!)

Just looking over recent posts, the EFF gets more interaction on BlueSky than it does on X despite 1/3 the followers and being on a much smaller site.

I think that says it all.

Their front page says "The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation for 35 years and counting!"

They are an organization that exists to support an ideological viewpoint. Any political stance is ideological!

>then say they will still be on BlueSky and Mastodon then you know it's purely ideological.

Both Bluesky and Mastodon are open/federated networks, which aligns more with EFF's values. So, yes, but I don't think for the reasons you're hinting at.

"Open source network that isn't controlled by corporations" is ideological, but not quite in the same way that you seem to be framing this.

The article is honest and open about reasons.

What is dishonest is to write as if there was something wrong with leaving twittwr for "ideological" reasons.

We are talking about EFF. They are essentially an advocacy group, 100% ideological by definition.

It would be dishonest of them to pretend they were not ideological. Staying on Twitter was likely worse for their mission then leaving it.

Performative expression is critical. You need to actually do the thing you believe and if it is of political significance say it and do it visibly. Otherwise there is no impact.

But then how would I know where to get more regular updates as somebody following them there? It used to be a bannable offense to even link to your presence on a competing side; not sure if it still is.

I think this is better than having an account with the last post being from 2019, with no explanation, looking dead, and still being able to receive messages from users.

well put. if their mission is to help protect vulnerable communities, and the effort to post on X is near zero ( it can be automated or take just a moment manually), they are betraying their mission to help protect as many vulnerable communities as possible.

It does, but what I'm reading from this is Twitter users are too right-wing for EFF to want to be around them. "Young people, people of color, queer folks, activists, and organizers use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day."

there isn't enough people left there to be worth the tradeoff

I had that exact same thought. The argument they presented applies to any walled garden, they gave no reason why X would be the exception.

It's clear this is about politics, and I'm not opposed to that, Elon is not awesome, but trying to justify it otherwise seems kind of shady.

[dead]

I was recently at a brown bag at work - regarding enablement of AI in the workplace (it was awesome - all over the roadmap) - and one of the audience asked the speakers (a very diverse group of people) how on earth they keep up with all the developments in AI?

All six of the speakers immediately said Twitter was realistically the only place you can keep up with the conversation. Having an extensively curated list means that anytime anything breaks (and often a few hours before) you are going to hear about it on X/Twitter.

I would love to know if there is anything even close to the reach of X. It has a lot of problems - but if you want to track breaking news, I can't think of anything else close to it.

Astounds me that anyone was using the platform even before Musk took over it.

It's cheaper to try to extort more out of a sucker than setting up a proper decentralized alternative. That's how I personally see what's going on, that nobody is moving out but everyone focus on gaming the system.

He banned me after I replied to his tweet with my display name set as "Elon's Musk".

I think I lasted <1 week after this takeover.

You'd be surprised how easy it is for people to compartmentalize their principles. Many do it day to day every time they purchase something online that was probably made using less than ideal labour practices.

Still, I'd advocate to leave social media in general. And certainly to get off twitter.

Lots of good discussion there still if you follow the right people and block certain categories of discussion. If you use lists then you'll see no suggested content beyond who you follow.

I'm more astounded that people think every single part of it is a cesspool when in reality there are gems to be found that aren't in any other X alternative like Bluesky or Mastodon or (lol) Threads.

>X, for better or worse, gets you eyes, more so than any other alternative social media.

But that is actually what they called out: they're not getting eyes anymore. Views at X have cratered so hard that it's barely worth the time.

> Yeah, somewhere where regular people that aren't terminally online won't ever have the chance to see it.

Honestly the first time I read this I thought you meant to say "will have the chance", because I don't know of any normal people that used Xitter in years. Most are now just on Instagram. Then again, my generation and geographical locatin might have something to do with that.

Nobody who's not terminally online ever used Twitter.

> X, for better or worse, gets you eyes, more so than any other alternative social media.

This is not true at all, and it's a silly statement. X isn't mainstream anymore, and the people who think it is are simply stuck in a bubble. I suspect you might be one of the "terminally online people" you're denigrating as not "regular people".

X's MAU is in the ballpark as Quora or Pinterest. "Pinterest gets you more eyes than any alternative social media" is a more defensible statement.

It's not even in the top 10. It's not 2010 any more, people are on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.

If you read the rest of the post, they cite Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok (which have 6x to 3x as many users), and they cite that their posts on X are getting only 3% the engagement they saw in 2018.

By their numbers, they are not getting "eyes" on X. Just to compare, their X post has 124 comments, 79 reblogs, and 337 likes, while their BlueSky post has 245 comments, 1400 reblogs, and 6.2K likes. Even their Mastodon post is getting more engagement than on X.

That's over 15x better ROI posting to BlueSky than on X.

Do regular people that aren't terminally online use X? I don't know any.

I stoped using Twitter (around when it was changing to be X) because 60-70% of the accounts I cared about left the platform. More and more people will look elsewhere as more organisations and people who aren’t into Musk’s politics leave.

The few people who were not terminally online left Twitter around the time it was renamed.

> Yeah, somewhere where regular people that aren't terminally online won't ever have the chance to see it.

You think those people are on X?

I don't know any X user that I wouldn't describe as "terminally online" and the same goes for the Twitter days too.

Based on what they are seeing, nobody is seeing their posts on X either. That's the point. Did you miss it?

[dead]

Also if you tweet a link to the content instead of tweeting the actual content, you get penalized by the algorithm.

They do this in almost every tweet.

Agreed.

Assuming they use the same principles everywhere, they're getting more views on Mastodon and Bluesky? That is surprising.

How do you know that they reduce their reach to their target audience in any considerable way? According to their article their reach on X is about 3% of what was 7 years ago, and god knows how much is bot from those 3%.

Elon, the guy that will ban anyone on X at the drop of a hat, opposes censorship?

Comical.

> It would be wise to use all of the information channels available to reach as many people as possible.

How about their website, which is accessible to everyone because it doesn't require you to log in?

> Elon despite his flaws opposes mass surveillance and censorship…

Sure, just like he was pro-free speech, until he suddenly wasn't.

His broken promise not to ban @elonjet is still up. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

His anti censorship stance isn't necessarily born out by the data:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/25/elon-mu...

This is to laughably misguided that it leans toward malicious.

I mean, you're talking about Elon, the Doge guy, the one who organized mass hoovering of citizens data from whatever sources he could get his grubby mitts on? That Elon?

Opposed to mass surveillance??

And then you sprinkle some commonly known truths on top to make your comment palatable ("we're being divided and conquered!"), and finally you add a dash of malicious speculation to seed some doubt against the organization ("Perhaps the EFF has been compromised!! It's a trick!!").

No thanks.

> Elon despite his flaws opposes mass surveillance and censorship, and that's the general sentiment on X at the moment. He just retweeted the Telegram founder 20 hours ago.

There are probably things more relevant about X than what it is that Elon Musk currently proclaims about his political opinions?

Is this the same guy that bought Twitter and then had his tweets promoted above all others and the AI bot a simp for him?

Whats is worse, censorship or that only those with money are heard? Who do you think is doing the dividing and conquering? Not everything is political, sometimes it's just a rort.

Elon is anti-censorship when it’s censorship of racism, homophobia, sexism and the other things the woke liberal left hate.

Elon is pro-censorship for the things he doesn’t like, like the word “cis”.

You can be happy that Elon is allowing alt-right speech, that’s fair, he has brought that back to Twitter, slurs are finally allowed again, truly the speech we all long for, but anti-censorship as a principle? Please. Pull the other one.

It's pretty obvious nobody here uses social media because EFFs pages on Facebook, Bluesky, and TikTok get like tens of impressions per post if that.

That is just like when those US celebs moved to Europe after Trump was elected!

Yeah, pretty sad to try and package it around morals. There were 2 dozen cataclysmic events on X since Elon walked in with the kitchen sink but THIS is the final straw. "Not my views!"

Brand reputation. Every brand that chooses to use X implicitly supports X, even if they're not verified & paying X money.

I've coded a 3rd party tool that could post to mastodon/twitter at the same time around 2020 (plenty of idle time during covid). I lost twitter API access, never bothered to try to make it work again (i hate working with interface clickers). to be clear, i don't really post on social media, it was just an experiment because i had faaar too much time and thought at the time that this kind of product could be interesting.

But i would bet social media managers use similar tools, and the fact that no one can access twitter API might add just the little bit of friction you want to avoid.

No, they even would get money for the engagement they get. This is purely moral grandstanding disguised as something else.

As one of them queer folks, it just rolls of the tongue easier.

It’s just another word for a group, same as people.

Yes: https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml

Why is this downvoted? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It is, but the other one is a link to their twitter post, whereas this is the longer self-hosted statement. This is a better, more informative source.

It could also be that the world as a whole cares less about privacy today than they did seven years ago. Without a relative measurement from a similar platform, it's a bit of an empty statement

One thing that has certainly changed is that algorithms have become more aggressive. If your content isn't performing well, it gets hidden much faster and more aggressively than before. This makes sense when you consider it from the PoV of the platforms (they have much more content to choose from)

They divide up users into groups a la Google+ groups(separate and against following/followers system) and restrict global visibility of your tweets unless you win the daily lottery, in which case your tweet gets bajilion views, or something. Attempts to bypass that system is penalized.

Not saying it's working, but I believe something like that is their current design intent of that joke of a massive backwards revolver. The way it currently works is that only those smart enough to bypass the penalization wins.

EFF reps on Twitter probably aren't "smart enough" to game that system, so they stay in the tiny group, and therefore they won't get the views.

Definitely both, potentially with one driving the other. While Twitter has always had an inclination towards quippy hot takes and similar, in its transformation into X it's taken a hard turn towards junk politically-slanted engagement bait above all else[0]. Content with any semblance of substance or nuance and especially anything misaligned with controlling interests gets buried.

The EFF is at odds with both facets of the current US administration as well as the big corporate donors in its pockets and its posts deal with nuanced topics, and so naturally its posts are among those not surfaced as often.

[0]: https://substack.com/home/post/p-193285131

I'm a former EFF member and donor and have an X account. Their engagement problem isn't with X or X's members. It's with the EFF itself.

A decade ago they lost the plot. They pulled some bullshit and lied to their entire membership in order to boost their cronies/friends at the Library of Congress. They framed efforts to keep the LoC under loose Congressional/Presidential oversight and free to do as they want as some Anti-Trump fight. Requests about why they would do this went completely unanswered to the membership.

The EFF Board serves their own goals and believe themselves unaccountable to their membership, so they no longer get my money and I no longer entertain or signal boost their message.

Old twitter embraced bots and counting bot impressions. X is more truth seeking, and hard line against bots and follower pumping.

> Is the contention here that there is more censorship on X compared to Twitter pre acquisition?

That's easy to sustain.

Pre-acquisition: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

Post-acquisition: https://x.com/elonjet

X under Musk has sustained more government takedown requests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/25/elon-mu...

To talk to a botnet? no thanks. You can decide to just not feed into twitter.

Personally I don’t use it for anything I can find pretty much everywhere else as well, but there are still a few people whose posts I consider interesting that only post on X.

> It's much more likely they've simply updated their alogorithms and the EFF doesn't hit some engagement metric.

It's even more likely that Twitter's audience in 2018 was fairly supportive of the EFF's goals, but X's audience in 2026 is either indifferent or hostile.

As they put it:

> X is no longer where the fight is happening. The platform Musk took over was imperfect but impactful. What exists today is something else: diminished, and increasingly de minimis.

I don’t feel their stance is “I’m not getting enough attention and it’s all Musk’s fault and I’m leaving”.

More “X is simply not worth our time anymore”. I can’t say with any certainty that X is on a death spiral (personally it does feel that way), but the kind of crowd who have remained in spite of Musk’s many public embarrassments (and the handling of Grok deep fakes and women) probably aren’t the kind who are passionate about the EFF

I work as a consultant for a small media, zero politics and very technical, and they report the same trend for X for the last 5 years or so. I was surprised that they told me they still want the "share on Twitter button" and keep the Twitter account but their activity there is nil, for the following reasons combined: 1) they have thousands of followers and thousands of impressions, but the engagement ratio (likes, comment, shares per follower) is abysmal compared with the other networks, 2) the format is different from other networks, while you can create something common for LinkedIn or Facebook, the Twitter share requires image re-crop and text rewrite (they don't use Instagram, the content doesn't fit) 3) while the main site receives a lot of clicks to read the full content (and see the ads that drive the income) from LinkedIn and Facebook, Twitter doesn't send clicks (people just read the header, at most hit the like-heart, and keep scrolling). Their conclusion: Twitter doesn't work any more for them and is getting worse (that said, BlueSky is even worse for them). Even spending 30 seconds there to polish a publication are 30 seconds wasted.

I don't know the numbers for EFF, but having 400K followers on X and getting between zero and five comments per post if you go back a couple of weeks (to skip today's fire), between zero and 20 retweets... sounds like a failed platform. They get better numbers from Facebook, a dying platform, with half the followers. They get similar or better numbers from Instagram with less than 10% of the followers they have in Twitter.

However if you view your content as valuable and the algorithm does not anymore, it's probably not the best platform for you to be on.

> the way that they think and talk about that work, in terms of what motivates it or what it is meant to achieve, is now a predominantly left-wing framing. If you don't have a left-wing worldview, you're at least not going to be culturally aligned with EFF's take on things, even if you agree with many of their positions and projects.

Is this due to them literally changing their mission and tack, or is this a shifting of the overton window? I would argue the latter, but you have direct experience there so I'm curious to hear more.

You're keeping Reddit of all places? If you want a net win for attention and value, Reddit ain't it.

Regarding YouTube, I can’t recommend enough turning off your history (even the front page is gone, it’s glorious) and subscribing only to select creators via RSS. I only see what I want to see, from creators I care about. Recommendations on the right side are always relevant to the video I just watched.

How the hell is this comment shadowed? It's 100% true.

[flagged]

Why is your comment getting shadowed. The F is wrong with HN crowd.

X is a rare platform where an individual manipulates the algorithm per his own personal political whims. And, yes he is explicitly racist and anti-democratic. No org that cares about freedom should contribute to what is really a personal effort to commandeer the information environment.

> changed from neutral rights-focused activism into questionable political activism.

What exactly are “neutral rights”? Every right is political, and none of them are neutral, you’ll always find someone who supports them and someone who opposes them. Remember when Nestlé’s CEO said that calling water a human right was an “extreme” opinion? And there used to be a time when people claimed owning slaves was their right.

What you are calling “questionable” right now is just something you don’t agree with. I have a feeling history will support EFF’s position over yours.

> Would EFF be leaving X if Elon had not taken over?

That’s like asking “would activists fight for your rights if no one was violating them”. I mean, no, but that doesn’t say anything. Had Twitter not have been sold but they eventually did the same things Elon did, then the EFF would probably have left just the same. Had Elon taken over but not done what he did, they probably wouldn’t have. The EFF is not on a personal vendetta, this is about the service as it is right now.

Just to clarify, until recently you were under the impression that the political advocacy organization you donated to had no political opinions of their own?

I can't believe such a nonpolitical organization would do this!!! Come on, you either have to be lying or you were never paying attention.

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/activists-sue-san-francis... https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-activists-demonstrate... https://www.eff.org/press/releases/media-alert-eff-argues-ag... https://www.eff.org/press/releases/law-enforcement-use-face-... https://www.eff.org/press/releases/trumps-blocking-people-hi... https://www.eff.org/press/releases/comprehensive-legal-refor...

They're leaving because the platform because of a combination of not enough real people and elon turning it into a nazi hellscape. The visibility isn't worth the hit to brand reputation which makes sense if you recognise liberty as intersectional

The EFF has always been against a large political segment, namely the status quo of "long-term intellectual property good, DRM good, businesses have the right to do whatever they want with data they collect, businesses have the right to arbitrarily use de-facto monopolies on computing platforms" which make no mistake were never neutral positions about rights.

[flagged]

People who fight for individual rights kinda have a problem with Nazis. Big freaking surprise.

In a two party world where one of those parties has been captured by a fascist movement, there is no "political neutrality". You're either pro-fascist or anti-fascist. And if you care about rights at all, including free speech, then the correct alignment is anti-fascist.

And yes, this is a US centric comment. The EFF is a US based organization and the center of gravity of the tech world they deal with is in the US.

Are they getting that from Bluesky? Mastodon? LinkedIn? Instagram? TikTok? Facebook?

Of course not.

And yet they leave X and only X.

We have probably crested over some peak, but you would not look at the broad numbers and say 3% of a peak is organic to that trend. That is a dying/dead website, at least from the position of someone running socials for EFF.

https://flowingdata.com/2025/10/03/passed-peak-social-media-...

I read “the math” there as doing something a little more figurative. It seemed to me like they led with circulation figures less because they care about their CPM efficiency or whatever, and more to use “views” as a kind of synechdoche for “the people who want to hear what we have to say.”

Brand reputation from staying on Twitter is part of the math.

Tweeting is easy. Managing the weirdos that respond to your tweets is hard.

> Community Notes wouldn’t have happened without X.

Community Notes did happen without X. It was a feature introduced in January 2021 under the name Birdwatch.

https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-bir...

Twitter’s acquisition only started over a year later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon...

Community notes was built by Twitter, before the purchase.

lol what? Still hundreds of millions of users on X.

I'm sorry, you didn't say anything about your reasoning behind your ad hominem attack, so I can't properly evaluate your point. I eagerly await your clarification as to the relevance of your observation with regards to this HN topic.

There what is?

Person fighting for liberty fights for liberty, more at 11

> you could just post less or use it for major updates

Why?

It just seems like they are unhappy with the algorithm, and like any customer for any service you can cancel service, say why you are canceling service, and move to alternatives especially when your concerns aren't addressed.

Then again, who cares one way or the other?

We all perform everyday. Those performances eventually become our identity and influence our actions.

>defending child murder as well

explain

From a throwaway...

Posts about US politics that have nothing to do with technology and are otherwise uninteresting get flagged because HN is not the place for that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics

If you just want to talk about how much you hate the current US administration with other people who also spend all their time talking about how much they hate the current US administration, there are much better places for that, such as r/politics.

I mean it’s always been an outlet of a popular Silicon Valley VC. As the US sinks more and more into despotism, those controlling Silicon Valley are just enablers of that despotism.