4 ms·

I don’t think it’s inevitable at all. In fact I believe that the present day situation boils down to one thing only: the prioritization of engagement at the co

I don’t think it’s inevitable at all. In fact I believe that the present day situation boils down to one thing only: the prioritization of engagement at the cost of all else. That’s what set us down this road. It incentivizes inflammatory posting that eschews nuance and context and twists and exaggerates the subject matter in order to provoke emotional responses — whether they be angry replies, “dunk” quote-posts, reposts, or even spending a couple extra seconds with the post on screen. Anything to steal away more of your attention and mindshare. Over time, this has polarized people to ever further extremes and normalized disrespect and bickering (as opposed to discussion). It would be an interesting experiment to see the effects of effectively the polar opposite of twitter, where ragebait and other attention-seeking behaviors are actively punished, with the content that’s most readily surfaced instead being that which is thoughtful, candid, and not emotionally charged.

lmm 2y ago
> It would be an interesting experiment to see the effects of effectively the polar opposite of twitter, where ragebait and other attention-seeking behaviors are actively punished, with the content that’s most readily surfaced instead being that which is thoughtful, candid, and not emotionally charged. Who would read it? The same people who already avoid twitter - not journalists, and therefore not celebs/politicians.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > Who would read it? Presumably, normal people who want to interact with people they already know? interaction with journalists and politicians is valuable in an entirely different manner.
anon7000 2y ago
Added to that is user choice over moderation and algorithms. That’s what’s truly interesting about BlueSky. It allows for side A and B to both exist, with people who want to be more isolated in a safe space (so to speak) to do so. That’s a really great property. If I want to engage with content I severely disagree with, I can put it in a feed I check infrequently so that it doesn’t impact my life. Humans aren’t good at coping with a constant barrage of disagreeable (for one’s personal definition of disagreeable) or inflammatory content.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  I like that aspect about Bluesky too. On “safe spaces”, as you hint at I think many of us don’t want to be shielded entirely from opposing or otherwise differing lines of thought. Speaking personally, I welcome it if there’s actual discussion to be had. Good faith discussions and exchange of perspectives is great, but I have no patience for trolls, circular logic, insults, “debate” that wouldn’t even pass for high school level, etc.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    I would love to see a respectful debate starter pack on bluesy get started. Maybe controled by a bot that looks for words that are insults like “troll” “don’t melt snowflake”, etc and will boot you if you get caught. I like political debate, sharing of trustable sources, etc. I don’t like someone telling me I’m just a melting snowflake or cuck, when I bring in a link from a scientific journal to cite as part of my argument
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Then you need to choose the safe space option. Under no circumstances should you opt to advertise removing content for others. Because your justification with "circular logic" could mean anything. This is the safe space option. That more free platforms employ spam protection is no excuse.
    - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
      I think circular logic is fairly well defined (from Wikipedia, “Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion.”) That said, yes it’s not grounds for a ban. I wouldn’t block over it either unless the person in question is being obnoxious and e.g. following me around between threads and trying to stir up argument about the subject of contention or resorts to personal insults or something like that.
bfrog 2y ago
It wasn’t like this as little as 10 years ago
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  You didn't really have people posting from their prepaid phones 10 years ago. Old internet users were a select group.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
Their advertising model certainly is a problem. But it isn't the only one, there are more and more users that demand other users be removed because of their opinion. When social networks started to listen to a few of them, they made themselves hostages to more demands. Platforms like Twitter or reddit certainly suffered from this.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  You can say just about whatever you want on bsky as long as you’re civil. I think you will probably get kicked if you start hate-ons for issues like trans, LGBTQ, women, etc that are uncivil. It’s one thing to debate gender, it’s another to say “quit crying qu*r”. That’s likely get you reported and banned or on some blacklists. I think you would probably have to be civil in discussions on groups that are likely protected under say the civil rights act, and modern take on that as to which groups should have been added but haven’t like LGBTQ. Just my take, it’s not the law of the land :). It seems like dems/magas/libertarians aren’t considered protected groups on there and I’ve seen some heated”discussions” that didn’t seem to get cut.
- drw85 2y ago
  I agree that ads are basically controlling most of the internet and public discourse now. Like you can't even use normal words in youtube videos anymore, because your video will be less visible/removed. On the other hand, there are way too many people/accounts/bots out there that don't actually want to talk or discuss something, but spread false information and incite rage and anger. Those need to be moderated even harder than they already are, i think.
  - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
    Overt support or advocacy for known hate/supremacist groups should fall under the scope of “needs moderation” as well. That sort of content has seen a sharp uptick on X which is one of the reasons why people are now jumping ship.

lmm 2y ago

> It would be an interesting experiment to see the effects of effectively the polar opposite of twitter, where ragebait and other attention-seeking behaviors are actively punished, with the content that’s most readily surfaced instead being that which is thoughtful, candid, and not emotionally charged. Who would read it? The same people who already avoid twitter - not journalists, and therefore not celebs/politicians.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Who would read it? Presumably, normal people who want to interact with people they already know? interaction with journalists and politicians is valuable in an entirely different manner.

anon7000 2y ago

Added to that is user choice over moderation and algorithms. That’s what’s truly interesting about BlueSky. It allows for side A and B to both exist, with people who want to be more isolated in a safe space (so to speak) to do so. That’s a really great property. If I want to engage with content I severely disagree with, I can put it in a feed I check infrequently so that it doesn’t impact my life. Humans aren’t good at coping with a constant barrage of disagreeable (for one’s personal definition of disagreeable) or inflammatory content.

cosmic_cheese 2y ago
I like that aspect about Bluesky too. On “safe spaces”, as you hint at I think many of us don’t want to be shielded entirely from opposing or otherwise differing lines of thought. Speaking personally, I welcome it if there’s actual discussion to be had. Good faith discussions and exchange of perspectives is great, but I have no patience for trolls, circular logic, insults, “debate” that wouldn’t even pass for high school level, etc.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I would love to see a respectful debate starter pack on bluesy get started. Maybe controled by a bot that looks for words that are insults like “troll” “don’t melt snowflake”, etc and will boot you if you get caught. I like political debate, sharing of trustable sources, etc. I don’t like someone telling me I’m just a melting snowflake or cuck, when I bring in a link from a scientific journal to cite as part of my argument
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Then you need to choose the safe space option. Under no circumstances should you opt to advertise removing content for others. Because your justification with "circular logic" could mean anything. This is the safe space option. That more free platforms employ spam protection is no excuse.
  - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
    I think circular logic is fairly well defined (from Wikipedia, “Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion.”) That said, yes it’s not grounds for a ban. I wouldn’t block over it either unless the person in question is being obnoxious and e.g. following me around between threads and trying to stir up argument about the subject of contention or resorts to personal insults or something like that.

bfrog 2y ago

It wasn’t like this as little as 10 years ago

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
You didn't really have people posting from their prepaid phones 10 years ago. Old internet users were a select group.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Their advertising model certainly is a problem. But it isn't the only one, there are more and more users that demand other users be removed because of their opinion. When social networks started to listen to a few of them, they made themselves hostages to more demands. Platforms like Twitter or reddit certainly suffered from this.

EasyMark 2y ago
You can say just about whatever you want on bsky as long as you’re civil. I think you will probably get kicked if you start hate-ons for issues like trans, LGBTQ, women, etc that are uncivil. It’s one thing to debate gender, it’s another to say “quit crying qu*r”. That’s likely get you reported and banned or on some blacklists. I think you would probably have to be civil in discussions on groups that are likely protected under say the civil rights act, and modern take on that as to which groups should have been added but haven’t like LGBTQ. Just my take, it’s not the law of the land :). It seems like dems/magas/libertarians aren’t considered protected groups on there and I’ve seen some heated”discussions” that didn’t seem to get cut.
drw85 2y ago
I agree that ads are basically controlling most of the internet and public discourse now. Like you can't even use normal words in youtube videos anymore, because your video will be less visible/removed. On the other hand, there are way too many people/accounts/bots out there that don't actually want to talk or discuss something, but spread false information and incite rage and anger. Those need to be moderated even harder than they already are, i think.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  Overt support or advocacy for known hate/supremacist groups should fall under the scope of “needs moderation” as well. That sort of content has seen a sharp uptick on X which is one of the reasons why people are now jumping ship.