You must log in or register to comment.
I’m glad all of you silly geese are sampling it so I don’t have to.
It says “no fully exposed” arse pix. What percentage of exposed derrière is acceptable? Asking for a friend.
If it’s an ad: 40%
If it’s a SW: -15%
40%. That’s nearly a whole cheek.
I take it to simply mean no full moons. So we’re safe up to waxing/waning gibbous.
lol There’s often a fair bit of waxing involved.
If you can see right up to OP’s breakfast, that may be considered “fully exposed”.
the headline is clickbait—the article has a really good point. threads is 50% brands emulating wendy’s twitter circa 2015 and 50% “insta famous” influencers being uninteresting. ive muted so many accounts but they don’t stop coming.
there’s no edge to any of the content that makes it fun. it’s a puritanical facsimile of what twitter used to be.
It seems to me to be a massive ad $ play. The place is flooded with brands and celebrities. Plus, Adam Mosseri stated that Threads isn’t trying for hard news or anything “angry.” It’s just a soft, bland spot to soak up more $$$
https://www.threads.net/t/CuZ3LjhNl0m/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
So basically exactly the kind of thing normies will become totally obsessed with and will therefore be a massive success
Idk, find it hard to believe sexually explicit content is what is gonna make or break it. The author seems to be talking about different degrees of promiscuity in the same article, so I am having a hard time following exactly.
In one paragraph, author is talking about how its boring cause it won’t allow sexually explicit material. But goes on to talk about how people are getting written up for harmless stuff like saying “boobs”, which to me is a WAY different problem lol.
I dread the (IMO likely) possibility that users will just accept Zuck’s overlordship since everyone they follow on Twitter will be on Threads as he enshittifies the platform with industrial-scale data harvesting, endless ads, a stiflingly puritanical content policy, and algorithms designed to maximize short-term profits rather than spark conversations, leaving users wanting more than pablum with nowhere to go. It would be the end of an era of social media freedom if that were the case.
…as he enshittifies the platform
The interesting thing is that Zuck has managed to innovate and start out enshittified. Out of the gate, you can’t see/find/access a feed of just your friends so you’re immediately drinking from a firehose of posts from people who you wouldn’t want to spend ten minutes on line with.
everyone they follow on Twitter
I fucked off Twitter months ago, so I don’t follow anyone over there. Check. Mate. Zuckerfucker!
Months? I ditched in 2019.
I did too, then came crawling back six months later.
I think it was easy for me because I had a couple of very public, negative interactions with people who were very prominent in my field of employment, and avoiding potentially career-limiting-interactions saved me a lot of personal stress.
Yeah, that’ll help.
I believe that advertisers are leaving Twitter not due to nudity, but:
- being associated with hate speech (companies don’t care, they just don’t want the association, they will fund hate groups behind everyone if it gets them lower taxes)
- Musk’s amazing engineering skills that breaks the site every Tuesday. Companies don’t invest in countries that constantly have regime changes (but they’d definitely move into long term authoritarian countries that they can bribe and monopolize)
Threads’ aversion of nudity? Most probably so that their app is approved in conservative countries. That’s what Netflix and HBO did.
the same author has been writing about how NSFW content could make or break social media platforms, so I’m assuming he’s just continuing from that.
I dislike that he completely glossed over the fact that there’s a goddamn option on Bluesky to hide / show contents from political hate group! (Why the hell are they even allowed on Bluesky in the first place?!)
(Why the hell are they even allowed on Bluesky in the first place?!)
Free Speech™
I wonder if the harsh content moderation guidelines were a strategic decision by Meta to make a Twitter alternative that’s actually financially sustainable. Assuming that twitter struggled with advertisers because of their lax approach to moderation (especially porn).
Was porn really the problem? I had the impression Musk’s tolerance of hate speech was what made advertisers run away. The woman getting banned for writing “boob” on Threads is such a puritan move.
Twitter has many problems that makes it’s hard for it to generate profit. Sure Musk’s ‘free-speech’ twitter has made it worse but I think twitter has struggled with profit generation since day one (I think it had a few good years recently before Musk took over) and the prevalence of porn didn’t help.
Threads moderation may be puritan but it is advertiser friendly. And as long as the millions of active accounts stay engaged it looks like a much better alternative than twitter for advertisers.
I get where this article is coming from but it does extremely poorly at explaining its topic and reads as basic “I hate content moderation because I can’t see nsfw content”
People are moving away from twitter because it’s full of spam, nudity and bullying. That doesn’t makes twitter any unique and/or worthy, that makes it toxic place to be in.
Freedom of speech and (nudity, bullying) are not the same thing.
Nudity and bullying are not the same thing.
Yeah I’m not pro meta taking over all of social media, but coming down hard and immediately on things that might constitute bullying and harassment , isnt necessarily a bad thing. The nudity thing is so so they already have a policy for “tasteful nudity” even if it sounds like it’s not well implemented, but I cant fault a social media for not wanting to be a space for porn and thirst posts.
