I'm not sure what you're alluding to regarding what happened on X during the election. If anything 2024 was smoother (very surprisingly) than what happened in 2020 even when Twitter had a Trust and Safety team, mostly because the election was not contested this time.

Right wing accounts were heavily pushed in the later stages of the election.

I manage a number of business X accounts which are publish only and all switched to showing right-wing politicians, pundits and extensive amounts of Elon Musk. I created a new account to check and same thing. Even though when I selected interests I specifically chose non-political topics.

For me it was very clear then that whether it's Musk or Zuckerberg no one should have the ability to push political content.

It is true that Elon pushed right-wing accounts algorithmically (and is one of the reasons for the exodus to Bluesky), but "no politics ever" as a neutral content moderation stance to counter that factor makes it impossible for a social network to show what's happening now in the world and will make people go elsewhere for the information gap.

No political content ever is a community growth stance and business strategy.

It is the right call, by frikking far.

There are a 3-4 horsemen of the apocalypse for online communities. The first two are most definitely politics and religion.

If these two topics are allowed on your forum, you are pretty much done. Flame wars, harassment, brigades etc. are going to be the highest you can expect.

This is going to force you into high amounts of comment removals and bans. The velocity of action, and anger of your users will mean that you can no longer communicate the rationale for your bans, or maintain transparency.

On top of this, you will start to attract groups who will want to use your community for astroturfing, or for targeting. So now you have to deal with the worst kind of adversarial behavior.

Getting rid of politics, is just simply better for the product.

I will also argue that there should be such product experiments conducted in the economy. We already have a multitude of platforms where we can discuss politics.

I'd argue that the apparent toxic nature of online politics is due to the design of the platforms hosting it (including the susceptibility of those platforms to manipulation by foreign govts and billionaires). There are a few different discussion platforms (e.g., vTaiwan) which are explicitly designed to help users converge on shared solutions rather than polarize them--we could simply encourage people to use those instead.

> Getting rid of politics, is just simply better for the product.

What you need to do is distinguish between politics and partisanship. Political discussion is not only fine but important, as long as it's civil. Partisan signaling, on the other hand, is poison, because it's flamebait and does not lead to reasoned discussion.

> If you want news/politics

The problem is that the right has largely moved politics into a cultural space. When you can't talk about being trans or being gay is that really politics? Self-identity isn't a political position, but it has been forced to be one, as those people are under constant attack.

In addition, they're the "out group", so they will actually be targeted. Certainly, nobody cares if you post your girlfriend, but if you post your boyfriend now it has become political.

Such rules aren't equal.

It's become a meme, but there's some truth to it. There're two genders, man and political. There're two sexual orientations, straight and political. There're two races, white and political.

> Self-identity isn't a political position

It is when policy is changed to prioritize self-identity over material reality.

The outcomes of such policy are often harmful, for example: https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-...

"Material Reality" is not so, that's simply your opinion, and a rather anti-science one. We've known about the divide of gender and sex for a while, and our notions of gender are almost entirely socially constructed. That's why some people are able to live their life, convincingly and without suspicion, as the other gender.

And, to be clear, the vast majority of rape is performed by heterosexual men who are not trans. Trans people are an incredibly small amount of the population. They're merely a scapegoat, because they're "weird" or "gross" or "perverted". It's nothing new, it's the same things people said about homosexuals.

There's no forcefield around women's restrooms, for instance. One does not need to take 5 years of hormone therapy and surgery to walk into the women's restroom and sexually assault someone. Men already do that, right now, and in MUCH greater numbers.

Also, as a sidenote, these TERFy articles and such should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Typically, when attacking minorities the strategy is to take aim at vulnerable populations, usually women and children. When homosexuality was breaking the mainstream, the main concern was pedophilia, because that's how you harm minorities. Naturally, any aim at transgender people will do it from the lense of "protecting women". Never mind that trans women are already at high-risk of sexual assault.

None of this means I think people AMAB should be allowed in women's prisons. But you have to understand, for people who are transgender women, if they go to men's prisons, they WILL be raped. Without a doubt and with no exceptions.

The problem isn't as simple as conservative pundits would like you to believe. Women don't want burly, masculine trans men in their restrooms either, for example, which would be the end result of a lot of conservative policy.