This is pretty easy to work around via vpns etc. Guess its another barrier…for now. But it forces escalating tactics by the other side to appear legit. So if ppl come to trust the “source” information. It might actually end up worse in the long run as the sources are all spoofed. Would need a more advanced system using signatures and real life verification to actually know a source. Similar to a ca with all of its drawbacks. Point being, this move is kind of a wash.
But it was not expected, it's a one trick pony, but it worked. There's a lot of accounts that were passing as being from one country, and they ended up being some content farmer from a third world country with a gdp per capita of 2000$.
It was in part fueled by Twitter's idea of paying content creators, which made the whole thing an engagement bait party, it gave an economic incentive to countries with cheap and idle workforces to work 9 to 5 on posting whatever got likes without even understanding it, even it was political.
I've never downloaded the Twitter app, only ever used the web. I live in Europe. I don't use VPNs. My account is marked as being located… in "the USA".
Is this a default fallback because they have no useful signal (the account is a decade old)?
Anyway, if it is this unreliable even in a very simple case, I do not see the point of trusting it to expose bot farms in Russia or India.
I'm a bit surprised how under-the-radar this story is in the mainstream press. It doesn't seem un-thinkable at all that in 5-10 years, countries will have digital borders to block certain countries from participating in their subset of the Internet. There's no way a Trump or Trump-like figure wouldn't love the ability to digitally block an entire country at their whim (like how he is doing with tariff rates now). And unlike a decade ago, it will be sold to the citizens with not much effort at all, especially if the current wave of protectionism/nationalism continues to hold.
To be honest there are some countries I'd love to be able to block myself. There's only criminal shit coming from them. All the scams, hacks, the "hello sir I'm calling from Microsoft" or the "We are looking for likes for $500 per day" crap.
But the bigger problem is that it won't work. They'll just set up PoPs in country. The law has never stopped criminals. They are criminals after all, breaking the law is a given.
If it did work a ban would give those countries a big kick up the ### to actually do something about it. Many countries just let it happen because of corruption. Sometimes something is done like recently in Myanmar but it's very rare and usually just for show.
For a while now I've been toying with the idea of national governments creating official forums that require some sort of verification of national ID to post on.
There are obviously a lot of other issues with social media sites like Reddit or HN but imagine how different local community subreddits would be if there was some way to know that the person you're talking to actually has some personal stake in the community and people there.
Personally I'd still want to slum it up on the non-regulated social media sites but I'd post on the pseudo-anonymous community sites and take what others have to say more seriously on there.
I would love that as an option in general. Yes it can be abused but that can be said for literally everything. The ability to actually have local networks as an option would be a blessing though.
I can see a certain group of people that would be chomping at the bit to be able to digitally block news and media coming out of a certain place exposing war crimes for all to see.
The point of early internet discussions was that "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog".
One could discuss things without the usual silly accusations of sexism or racism or ageism or whatever because no-one knew the characteristics of the other interlocutors.
X now broadcasting everyone's location and people self-announcing their pronouns/race/age whatever are backward steps and make it way to easy for the silly people who want to be victims rather than argue the facts of an issue.
Sure, it doesn’t have to be dictated by anyone. But there is still value in what the GP said. Considering ideas for what they are, and evaluating them on their merits, is a better way to discuss things.
In the least, showing locations (which can be faked), or implying that someone in certain geographies is more legitimate, is incorrect. If someone lives near me and is commenting on some local issue, they can still post fake AI-generated images, or spread misinformation, or mislead with missing context, or whatever. Those problems still exist, and the need to consider the information on its own merits still exists. So what do you really gain?
The beauty of "nobody knows you're a dog" was that the world would take seriously, for example, a precocious 14 year old so long as her ideas were brilliant enough.
The reality of "nobody knows you're a dog" is that the world takes seriously a precocious 14 year old even if her ideas are completely absurd, provided she has 100K followers.
Many of the world's most influential minds are dogs now; the masses have trouble distinguishing between reason and dog shit.
> Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue"
Au contraire. Exactly the people that keep ruining proper debate. People who are unable to discuss facts but try so very very hard to construe other people's factual comments as attacks on someone, somewhere, and therefore 'bad' and worthy of censorship.
True but I usually give all fake info. Except my pronouns because I want to support the LGBTIQ movement in this day of so much hate against us.
But even when I sign to too a web shop or whatever I don't give them my real DOB because they have no legit reason to want to have it. I just randomise it and store it in my password manager.
“On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog” was a joke in a New Yorker cartoon, and it was not written to be complimentary. It definitely was not “the point” of early Internet discussions.
On the contrary, I read the cartoon as being very complimentary, as it espouses the virtue of egalitarianism. Why should someone on the internet know that you're a dog? If you're campaigning for the eradication of cats, perhaps. But even then, shouldn't we assume everyone is personally motivated and that a good argument is a good argument?
There's an impossible balance to be found between total transparency and not having to reveal all truths about your being, such as your species.
You’re saying the great thing about the early internet is you could be sexist and racist without being called out? I thought the great thing about the early internet was the experimentation and discovery on consistently evolving technologies and ideas with like minded folks, but to each their own.
Back then people online weren't really sexist or racist. They were really nice and helpful people. No extreme right. The internet was a really friendly place.
Although back then it was also kinda taboo so they were usually banned everywhere (not just online). Which was great IMO.
Not very much later of course came the masses and the emergence of awful platforms.
No, the point was that criticizing someone else wouldn't get you wrongly accused of sexism or racism (as it commonly does now), simply because everyone would be able to see the accusation as absurd (it is logically impossible to discriminate on the basis of information you don't have).
One major thing this has exposed is how many people from non US countries are grifting on the cultural war between the left and right in the US by pretending to be on either side.
This kind of content still gets a lot of engagement and can be pretty profitable for people in third world countries.
I think it’s good that has been exposed. There is a difference between me, as an Aussie, commenting on affairs in other countries, vs straight up exploiting peoples fears by pretending to be left or right wing, in the US, and sharing content to further fan the flames between people on the political spectrum.
You could argue they can still post this content, but it’s already pretty clear people tend to disregard or ignore this kind of rage bait when they realise the users are disingenuous.
>This kind of content still gets a lot of engagement and can be pretty profitable for people in third world countries.
How does monetization work in practice? You set up a twitter account saying that trans prisoners should get taxpayer funded care, and then what? You drop a link to your gofundme? Shill some betterhelp affiliate links?
>One major thing this has exposed is how many people from non US countries are grifting on the cultural war between the left and right in the US by pretending to be on either side.
The US has shoved so much of its internal politics and culture over the whole world's throat, and dominates so much of the internet, and US-inspired regional politics in a lot of the world, that many people legitimately get caught up and chime in on US hot topics even the culture war too
You make it sound like only "right wing" people are idiots being fooled when I honestly doubt most right wingers in the US even have time for X or most crap like this mainly because they are busy working, raising families, and living their lives. It would seem more like the unwashed leftists who inhabit the Internet and live in some kind of altered reality would succumb to the "culture war" you are talking about. People on the right are far more rugged and while many are probably kind of dumb, a lot of them aren't.
I disagree that this is a great step towards anything, and thinking it is strictly just increasing transparency without other downsides feels naive.
The obvious issues: lots of people use VPNs for privacy reasons, even if they’re not in a country with serious risks from governments. Or they use the Internet while traveling and post from other locations. Or they may engage in discussions that affect them even if they don’t live in a particular area. Maybe they lived there previously or are going to move there.
But also, this has opened a whole new way to dismiss people and their ideas based on location. For example, I see lots of comments on X that have become outright racist, against people allegedly posting from China, or Pakistan, or India. People with politics on all sides are using the location info to claim their opponents are falling for foreign propaganda - the left people are posting examples of right accounts that are foreign, and right people are posting examples of left accounts that are foreign. But what’s common is when these posts are made, it encourages and brings out the most vile attacks against people of different ethnicities or countries.
> X’s recent bold decision, led by Head of Product Nikita Bier, to add country labels to accounts reflects an important shift: a recognition that geographic transparency is crucial context to help users understand whether a post is a firsthand account or distant commentary, whether it reflects genuine local sentiment or coordinated foreign messaging.
Nikita is wrong about this. The location is not transparency that is helping people understand whether a post is firsthand or distant. Most things can be discussed well without location playing a hand in what is being discussed. The actual real life usage of this is to perform shallow dismissals and racist attacks. Not to ascertain the veracity of some claim. Besides that, how would location help? Anything can be faked with AI. Even if someone genuinely lives in a particular location, they can fake content, or mislead readers, or spread misinformation.
I’ll also say I am not impressed by Nikita Bier, who is apparently leading X’s product. The way he communicates on social media makes him look like an immature troll rather than someone serious (example: https://xcancel.com/nikitabier/status/1991723005454741995). I guess it is fitting with the image carried by Elon and Twitter/X these days, though.
Readit News
It was in part fueled by Twitter's idea of paying content creators, which made the whole thing an engagement bait party, it gave an economic incentive to countries with cheap and idle workforces to work 9 to 5 on posting whatever got likes without even understanding it, even it was political.
Or botnets to get residential IPs
Is this a default fallback because they have no useful signal (the account is a decade old)?
Anyway, if it is this unreliable even in a very simple case, I do not see the point of trusting it to expose bot farms in Russia or India.
But the bigger problem is that it won't work. They'll just set up PoPs in country. The law has never stopped criminals. They are criminals after all, breaking the law is a given.
If it did work a ban would give those countries a big kick up the ### to actually do something about it. Many countries just let it happen because of corruption. Sometimes something is done like recently in Myanmar but it's very rare and usually just for show.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/22/un_asian_scam_calls/
There are obviously a lot of other issues with social media sites like Reddit or HN but imagine how different local community subreddits would be if there was some way to know that the person you're talking to actually has some personal stake in the community and people there.
Personally I'd still want to slum it up on the non-regulated social media sites but I'd post on the pseudo-anonymous community sites and take what others have to say more seriously on there.
One could discuss things without the usual silly accusations of sexism or racism or ageism or whatever because no-one knew the characteristics of the other interlocutors.
X now broadcasting everyone's location and people self-announcing their pronouns/race/age whatever are backward steps and make it way to easy for the silly people who want to be victims rather than argue the facts of an issue.
Try and follow the discussion.
In the least, showing locations (which can be faked), or implying that someone in certain geographies is more legitimate, is incorrect. If someone lives near me and is commenting on some local issue, they can still post fake AI-generated images, or spread misinformation, or mislead with missing context, or whatever. Those problems still exist, and the need to consider the information on its own merits still exists. So what do you really gain?
Though it's commerce that really broke it.
The reality of "nobody knows you're a dog" is that the world takes seriously a precocious 14 year old even if her ideas are completely absurd, provided she has 100K followers.
Many of the world's most influential minds are dogs now; the masses have trouble distinguishing between reason and dog shit.
Well, if she has 100K followers, then clearly there is something to her ideas. You might not like it, but 100K others do.
Or it could been seen as a pro-active way of eliminate the annoying "a/s/l" spam from them yonder days of internet chatrooms/forums.
> the silly people who want to be victims
Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue"
> Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue"
Au contraire. Exactly the people that keep ruining proper debate. People who are unable to discuss facts but try so very very hard to construe other people's factual comments as attacks on someone, somewhere, and therefore 'bad' and worthy of censorship.
But even when I sign to too a web shop or whatever I don't give them my real DOB because they have no legit reason to want to have it. I just randomise it and store it in my password manager.
There's an impossible balance to be found between total transparency and not having to reveal all truths about your being, such as your species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
Although back then it was also kinda taboo so they were usually banned everywhere (not just online). Which was great IMO.
Not very much later of course came the masses and the emergence of awful platforms.
This kind of content still gets a lot of engagement and can be pretty profitable for people in third world countries.
I think it’s good that has been exposed. There is a difference between me, as an Aussie, commenting on affairs in other countries, vs straight up exploiting peoples fears by pretending to be left or right wing, in the US, and sharing content to further fan the flames between people on the political spectrum.
You could argue they can still post this content, but it’s already pretty clear people tend to disregard or ignore this kind of rage bait when they realise the users are disingenuous.
How does monetization work in practice? You set up a twitter account saying that trans prisoners should get taxpayer funded care, and then what? You drop a link to your gofundme? Shill some betterhelp affiliate links?
The US has shoved so much of its internal politics and culture over the whole world's throat, and dominates so much of the internet, and US-inspired regional politics in a lot of the world, that many people legitimately get caught up and chime in on US hot topics even the culture war too
The obvious issues: lots of people use VPNs for privacy reasons, even if they’re not in a country with serious risks from governments. Or they use the Internet while traveling and post from other locations. Or they may engage in discussions that affect them even if they don’t live in a particular area. Maybe they lived there previously or are going to move there.
But also, this has opened a whole new way to dismiss people and their ideas based on location. For example, I see lots of comments on X that have become outright racist, against people allegedly posting from China, or Pakistan, or India. People with politics on all sides are using the location info to claim their opponents are falling for foreign propaganda - the left people are posting examples of right accounts that are foreign, and right people are posting examples of left accounts that are foreign. But what’s common is when these posts are made, it encourages and brings out the most vile attacks against people of different ethnicities or countries.
> X’s recent bold decision, led by Head of Product Nikita Bier, to add country labels to accounts reflects an important shift: a recognition that geographic transparency is crucial context to help users understand whether a post is a firsthand account or distant commentary, whether it reflects genuine local sentiment or coordinated foreign messaging.
Nikita is wrong about this. The location is not transparency that is helping people understand whether a post is firsthand or distant. Most things can be discussed well without location playing a hand in what is being discussed. The actual real life usage of this is to perform shallow dismissals and racist attacks. Not to ascertain the veracity of some claim. Besides that, how would location help? Anything can be faked with AI. Even if someone genuinely lives in a particular location, they can fake content, or mislead readers, or spread misinformation.
I’ll also say I am not impressed by Nikita Bier, who is apparently leading X’s product. The way he communicates on social media makes him look like an immature troll rather than someone serious (example: https://xcancel.com/nikitabier/status/1991723005454741995). I guess it is fitting with the image carried by Elon and Twitter/X these days, though.