I've been disgusted by the lack of professional solidarity among journalists ever since Musk bought Twitter. As Musk bans journalists one-by-one, their colleagues stay on Twitter, tweeting out their work, hoping that they'll survive the next round.

@chadloder If you were a journalist for Mother Jones & The Daily Stormer bought it out completely & started spreading far right, fascist hate. Guess what? You're a journalist for The Daily Stormer.

@sentient_water The question is about implied endorsement, right? If you're a reporter for a DS subsidiary I think that implies something that using a platform like Twitter doesn't.

Using Twitter doesn't mean you wholeheartedly approve of e.g. what Twitter did to NPR in the way that reporting for DS means you embrace antisemitism, for example.

@ech @sentient_water Best case, solidarity with the journalism NPR represents would be ethical and show character.

From a selfish POV, they’ve had visibility downgraded in favor of the $8 gang and been demoted to same as RT in apparent credibility.

Bottom line, Twitter has become a figurative nazi bar. It’s sad, but it’s happened and it’s escalating. Time for good people to pack up and leave.

@skry @sentient_water You are likely overstating the credibility hit :) (This place sort of self-selects for that, I realize.)

"show character" is kind of what I was getting at. It would be great if we could en-masse move everyone to a platform that was run reasonably. (This is one reason I'm here instead – protocols not platforms.) But we can't. Any journalist who does is likely just throwing a good chunk of their career/influence/etc away for infinitesimal practical benefit to the world. Is that really the hill you want journalists to choose? Think the journalists you'd consider most likely to do what you're asking for here: do you want them silenced for such little gain? I sure wouldn't.

<skip overwrought Nazi analogy>

@ech @sentient_water I guess journalism is doomed then because Twitter is toast.