131–140 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one example of hyperreality(1) would be a person seeing a phrase that they don’t immediately understand and deciding “this is how ‘the left’, a real and cohesive/consistent group, talks” 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First you need to identify a victim before you can come to their rescue. Is the parent poster a victim? Are the people he taunts into death threats his victims? Am I a victim of your verbal attack. Are you a victim because you read something and reacted?
You don’t know what the parent posted. I didn’t attack you. You shared your own irrelevant experience which undermines the experience of being threatened. You then used that irrelevant experience to assume with no information that these threats were deserved. You could have instead asked what was posted and then offered your advice if it was warranted. But what post or posts justify graphic death threats?
You can't have it both ways. You can be a hero saving a victim by creating more victims.
What posts justify graphic death threats? In a vacuum none. With context I could think of many examples including: Maybe he is posting death threats himself or perhaps committed a crime to a person in an identity we consider more of a victim.
Someone who punches somebody and when they hit them back that person is suddenly the victim? I'm not sure I see the world as black and white as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one example of hyperreality(1) would be a person seeing a phrase that they don’t immediately understand and deciding “this is how ‘the left’, a real and cohesive/consistent group, talks” 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
[flagged]
> Liberals and the left do not need the right to be online in the way that the right needs liberals and the left. The nature of reactionary politics demands constant confrontations—literal reactions—to the left. People like Rufo would have a substantially harder time trying to influence opinions on a platform without liberals. “Triggering the libs” sounds like a joke, but it is often essential for segments of the right.
The assumption that strangers on the internet are interested in or obligated to engage with “debate me bro”-style theatrics any time a person feels like summoning them to is very much a specific example of hyperreality that is particularly endemic amongst “the right”
> I'm going to go ahead and stick my dick in the hornets nest
You can put your dick somewhere else. It is not interesting here.
1 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/11/twitt...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty easy to get that kind of vitriol if you say that you want people like you to continue existing.
And you say this to people you label not like you. You probably have more in common than you think. You both agree to label the other and you decided to fight a proxy battle from the agreed among identities. Do you want the other side not to exist as well? If yes let them know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t know what the parent posted. I didn’t attack you. You shared your own irrelevant experience which undermines the experience of being threatened. You then used that irrelevant experience to assume with no information that these threats were deserved. You could have instead asked what was posted and then offered your advice if it was warranted. But what post or posts justify graphic death threats?
If I felt you attack me doesn't that make me a victim based on your worldview. You tell me that my opinion is irrelevant because someone who you labelled a victim could be undermined then you do the same thing. You can't have it both ways. You can be a hero saving a victim by creating more victims. What posts justify graphic death threats? In a vacuum none. With context I could think of many examples including: Maybe…
No.
> You tell me that my opinion is irrelevant because someone who you labelled a victim could be undermined then you do the same thing.
I didn’t say your opinion is irrelevant. I said your experience of not receiving death threats is irrelevant to someone else’s experience of receiving death threats.
> You can't have it both ways. You can be a hero saving a victim by creating more victims.
I’m not a hero and I’m not saving anyone.
> Maybe he is posting death threats himself or perhaps committed a crime to a person in an identity we consider more of a victim.
There’s literally no justification for graphic death threats. You have no reason to believe either of those hypotheticals are real.
> Someone who punches somebody and when they hit them back that person is suddenly the victim? I'm not sure I see the world as black and white as that.
You are arguing with your own straw man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> largest social media ads and monetization platform in the world behind it ready to make the dollars flow at the push of a button At the direct cost of making a worse product for users. I remain hopeful that Bluesky is able to monetise/fund development without succumbing to working against its users.
Hoping that the people who made twitter what it is will somehow create a different outcome when doing the same thing is ... something.
I’m cautiously optimistic that the open/decentralised nature of these sites can act as a powerful forcing function to keep them in check, keeping their incentives more inline with their users compared to traditional commercial social media sites.
Mastodon’s financial (and so far technical) structure seems more inline with this compared to taking on investment, so we’ll see how it goes.
I just want a network that’s not going to juice engagement to optimise for page views for ad revenue. I want a reverse chronological feed. I want third party clients that might have different UX ideas
It’s free to hope :)
> but now the Bluesky app has exploded to 3.5 million daily active users, putting it just 1.5 times behind Meta’s Threads Are they implying that Threads has just ~5 million daily active users? Adam Mosseri shared in the beginning of November that they have 275 million monthly active users. Bluesky meanwhile has 20 million total users. Considering the author hasn't shared a single source for their claim, I find it har…
I’d bet Meta is counting all the random Instagram users that accidentally interact with the forced threads clickbait posts in their feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usenet, BBSs, mailing lists etc. are social media
Those are very social places but I would classify them as not social media because real names / identities weren't attached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is the upside of X. People leaving to join the echo chambers of Bluesky or Threads, only serves to turn X into the echo chamber they claim it is.
I know I'm falling for the bait, but saying X is some last bastion of free speech is baffling, considering it's actual actions. Why do the remaining posters keep self-censoring "Blues*y"?