3 ms·

I’m not on it, but from what I’ve seen posted online from a few people who had problems it seems like their main theory was the idea that they wouldn’t have to

by MBCook 2y ago

I’m not on it, but from what I’ve seen posted online from a few people who had problems it seems like their main theory was the idea that they wouldn’t have to do too much. Between their “federation” and the ability to make your own lists or feeds it sounded a bit like they thought it was up to users to control their experience. I would hope they would act on death threats and such but it sounded like they wanted to be more “open” and less “censor-y” than old Twitter, which was already a problem place for a great many.

ggm 2y ago
Technologists seem to have hopeless, irredeemable optimism that "just a bit more tech" will solve social problems. I think Musk's removal of the tech underpinnings of X was perhaps the counter-example which proves "not enouch tech" creates problems, but I do think "it's nice here so it will go on being nice here" is latent in how people talk about Bluesky, Mastodon, all the "other" socials. People love to kibbitz about HN, and it is maybe clique-y but at the same time it's not just one or two people reminding everyone "be nice" -pretty well anyone can do it, and they do. Maybe there's some threshold level where that kind of self-policed experience dies against the tides. I don't think being less censor-y is a good idea. I know thats hugely unpopular with a massive cohort of people. I don't for a minute pretend its defensible against a reductionist hard-core free-speech view of the world. I just think it turns out living in a completely-free speech world is tiresome. Some restraint turns out to be more than just "be nice" to be effective. "be nice: or else" basically. But "or else" means you're in a permitted space, not an unconstrained space.