I'll confirm that a lot of that is out there, but I'd refute "Trump and Putin, the only leaders talking the truth",  I haven't gotten that (but did watch the full Putin interview).

I've also gotten that the case for CO2 causing climate change is coming unraveled, and the WEF is full of a bunch of wankers who actually refer to themselves as "the elitists".

There is a lot to filter (for yourself) these days, but I am generally happier doing that than having someone else filter it for me.

One of the upsides of all the commotion is that I've had to clarify (internally) what "the American experiment" really means to me---and how that's different from a generic blanket statement that "democracy is good".  I've also learned that the term "hate speech" is an amorphous smoke screen for Orwellian censorship---against so-called "mal-information" (i.e. that which is true but inconvenient to the narrative of the government).

On Trump:  My take is that even his supporters think he says (mostly) stupid things, but because he is deemed so "dangerous" by the powers-that-be it identifies him as outside-the-system, and therefore preferable to the uniparty/captured-government alternative.

On Putin:  Almost universally I see the interpretation of the (uncensored) interview is that he has an extremely Russo-centric take (and in part false) view of world history, but it's better to understand him that just shallow some narrative of demonization (i.e. pure evil) that the establishment wants to sell (for hard to pin-down "reasons").

Again, this is all coming from a deep distrust of the state rooted in the internet breaking the mainstream media's lock on the distribution of info.  A lot that has always been hidden is now "out there"---hence all these bills being proposed in Europe/Canada to limit "hate speech" and independent journalism.  It's hurting the narrative of the powerful and making them look (at best) inept and (at worst) amoral liars.

The downside of all the info floating around "loose" is the old adage: "Opinions are like a**holes...everyone has got one."

But...yeah...the algorithms on X are not great.  You should personally have more control via knobs.

So mostly I get fantasy art, comics, science, history, cats, and so on.

If you engage with trolls or MAGA hats, etc., the algorithm will think that's what you want to see because you clicked on it, or lingered on it reading it.

I've managed to get it way less obnoxious than Facebook ever was (which I quit).

Using Twitter as an info source has to take into consideration the way that the algorithms work, and to recognize what demographic box you fit into.  The idea that it's somehow a more direct and less curated source of democratized and trustworthy information is ludicrous. It may have started with that as the goal, but that's nearly two decades in the rearview.  It's now a bubble generator, where opinion is stated as fact, and the best you can hope for is a bowlful of confirmation bias - and given that it's run with stated prejudice by Musk, said bias will likely skew right regardless of the path you choose.

Every now and then it veers left in response to a news event --- almost in a coordinated way and makes me wonder if the bubbles just collided.

I did used to enjoy the X Files too. Just saying. :)

Bill Clinton once said he watched Fox News because he liked yelling at the TV.  I understand the impulse, but jeez it's depressing.

Considering the crazy is pretty much impossible to avoid outside of Twitter, I'll stick with the good stuff on Twitter, just to remind me it's actually there.  And the world isn't completely crazy.

I don't feel the need to start either....

A desperate rebranding will not serve to get me on board.