As much as I don’t believe bsky will be any different, and won’t join it myself, the momentum is there. Took a little longer than it should have but the tipping point is here and we should all relish in the bird’s passing.
I think bluesky and twitter will become politically divided and become their respective echo chamber rather than Twitter going out of fashion.
Overall the discourse quality will go down at both places.
Thought may happen but it will still be an improvement.
The big problem with Twitter / X is everything ends up being about politics.
Want to talk about a video game, you can’t because some dipstick mega supporter is going to accuse it of being woke.
Want to talk about a programming language, nope apparently that is woke too.
Want to share a funny cat picture, nah, can’t do that apparently a man having a cat is gay and woke.It’s exhausting dealing with these idiots.
While I would love people to come over to mastodon (or mastodon adjacent) I personally think this is a step in the right direction. Having more fediverse adjacent platforms makes it easier for people to communicate in a much less platform specific conglomeration.
Mastodon is broken as fuck for me. I don’t know if it’s my instance, or the country I’m in, or what. The app mostly just spins and hangs. It’s been like this for a year. I’ve never been able to see who other people are following, which is something I like to do to discover new content. I’ve never been able to view videos that people post. I joined in 2020 and I’m probably just going to delete my account.
Before that, try joining mas.to and using Tusky. I’ve never had an issue.
thanks for the recommendation. i suspect some of the issues are instance related
People thought the first Trump presidency was a politically divided time, but maybe we’re now entering an even more divided time, given that social media is now fragmenting along political lines, more prominently than it did before.
Hahaha, they’re just now noticing? Rich.
And how will Bkuesky be any different? It won’t.
Wow, that’s pessimistic
the same level of toxicity that I left reddit for seems to be permeating Lemmy, now.
I’ll never understand liberals need to distance themselves from those who disagree with their opinions while simultaneously asking for their vote. You really need to engage and find common ground with those you disagree with to win their vote.
People have been trying that for years without apparent success. Let’s try shunning the antisocial people instead. We didn’t defeat the nazis by being nice and friendly to them
Besides, journalists being on twitter is one large reason anyone cares about twitter. Getting people to care about a platform not owned by the first lady might be a good idea
There are no Nazis. You sound just like Putin justifying his invasion of Ukraine.
How many more times am I going to see this same title before X implodes?
Can it implode? Leon can just keep burning money to keep it alive. It’s going to probably be funded by the government soon anyway.
I highly doubt it’ll ever be funded by the government.
It wouldn’t surprise me. He just partners with Truth Social and says that TS and Xitter will be the new government communication method and should be funded by the government. Probably will say it’s more efficient or something.
This is going to be a corruption free for all.
Sure, but there are all kinds of issue with that. First, Trump has significant investments in TS, so having the government fund that would be a massive conflict of interest. Second, conservatives love to rail on places like NPR getting public funding, and funding X is a bit too much of an about-face IMO.
Yeah, you’re right. Trump would never do anything that’s a conflict of interest.
“Journalists flock to yet another proprietary, commercial platform as the last becomes increasingly ‘toxic’ for reasons unknown.”
Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving, in this case the very guy that caused their troubles in the first place.
Those are the very people supposed that are supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threat as well as mobilize the general population to defend against them.
But again they lead the population to the slaugtherhouse.
The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s is certainly the first thread unravelling our civilizations in favour of the hype con-mens and their billionaires backers and other monarchs trying to swallow humanity whole.
All this effort, yet we don’t even resist…
Dude, what ?
I think I was clear enough … but ok fine
https://chatgpt.com/share/674e9f43-b38c-8005-983b-52b292558f29
The commenter is expressing a deep critique of modern journalism and society at large, suggesting that journalists are failing in their responsibilities and are complicit in societal decline. Here’s a breakdown of what the commenter likely means:
#“Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving”
The commenter is criticizing journalists for following trends or popular movements (the “herd”) without critical thought. In this case, they’re pointing out the irony of journalists leaving X (formerly Twitter) for Bluesky, which is owned by Jack Dorsey, the same individual who they believe contributed to the issues with X in the first place.
#“Those are the very people supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threats”
Journalists are traditionally seen as watchdogs of society—tasked with investigating and exposing wrongs, informing the public of dangers, and holding power to account. The commenter believes that journalists are failing in this role and instead are following the crowd or serving the interests of the powerful.
#“Bow again they lead the population to the slaughterhouse”
This is a metaphor suggesting that journalists, instead of protecting society or providing guidance, are leading people into harmful or exploitative systems (like Bluesky, which the commenter views as another “slaughterhouse” similar to X). They argue that journalists are enabling the public’s exploitation rather than resisting it.
#“The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s”
The commenter seems to argue that journalism has been in decline since the early 2000s, likely referring to trends like the rise of sensationalist media, the collapse of traditional news revenue models, and the increasing influence of corporate and billionaire-backed interests in the media landscape.
#“Unraveling our civilizations in favor of hype conmen and their billionaire backers”
Here, the commenter criticizes how society has moved toward elevating “hype” (short-term trends, marketing gimmicks, and flashy tech solutions) and “conmen” (figures like tech CEOs or opportunistic influencers) who are supported by billionaires. They argue that this is undermining democratic values and public institutions, leading to a general unraveling of civilization.
#“Trying to swallow humanity whole”
This phrase likely reflects their belief that powerful individuals or entities (tech billionaires, corporations, or modern elites) are consolidating power and control, exploiting humanity for their own benefit, and eroding societal structures.
“All this effort, yet we don’t even resist”
The commenter laments the lack of resistance or pushback from the general public or journalists against these harmful trends. They suggest that society is passively accepting exploitation and harm instead of fighting back.
#In Summary:
The commenter believes that journalists, who should be resisting harmful trends and informing the public, are instead complicit in perpetuating systems of exploitation (like Bluesky or X) controlled by the very figures responsible for creating societal problems. This lack of resistance reflects a broader societal failure to stand up against powerful entities that are eroding civilization for their own gain.
#You said: Why is this seen as a failure of the journalistic profession in particular ?
Can journalist really be expected to the understand the nuance and the weight of consequence of the architecture of the “public square” that they choose ?
In this case, privately owned “monarchical” centralized social media platform with one individual assuming complete control of all language and the means of mass communication of the entire intelligentsia ?
Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight and consequence of their actions ?
#ChatGPT said:
The commenter’s critique stems from the high expectations placed on the journalistic profession and the role it plays in democratic societies. Journalists are often seen as both watchdogs of power and facilitators of public discourse, which places an ethical and intellectual burden on them to understand the broader implications of their decisions and actions. However, your question raises important points about the fairness and feasibility of holding journalists to such a high standard, especially in complex situations like the architecture of the “public square.” Why is this seen as a failure of journalism?
#The Role of Journalists as Informers and Guides:
Journalism has traditionally been tasked with more than just reporting facts. Journalists are expected to critically analyze power structures, understand systemic issues, and inform the public in a way that fosters accountability and empowers citizens. The commenter believes that by flocking to platforms like Bluesky (owned by Jack Dorsey), journalists are showing a lack of critical thinking and failing to recognize the consequences of their choices. In this view, they are unwittingly legitimizing another centralized, privately-owned system that could perpetuate or worsen the very problems they faced on X (formerly Twitter).
#The “Monarchical” Structure of Social Media:
Platforms like Bluesky or X are privately owned “public squares” where a single individual or corporation has immense control over the flow of information, content moderation, and the rules of engagement. Journalists, as professionals who rely on these platforms to communicate and amplify their work, are seen as endorsing or enabling these systems by choosing to use them. The commenter believes this complicity undermines their role as critics of power, since they are aligning with systems that concentrate power in the hands of a few.
#The Historical Role of Journalists as Resistors:
Throughout history, journalists have been instrumental in resisting oppressive systems and exposing injustices. The commenter implies that this tradition is being abandoned in favor of convenience, popularity, or the path of least resistance. Rather than critically evaluating the implications of supporting platforms like Bluesky, journalists are seen as prioritizing their short-term goals (audience reach, relevance) over their long-term responsibility to challenge harmful systems.
#Can journalists be expected to understand the nuances of these platforms?
#Lack of Specialized Knowledge:
Most journalists are not technologists, architects of digital systems, or political theorists. They may not fully grasp the nuances of how social media platforms are designed, the centralization of power in digital spaces, or the systemic risks posed by monopolistic control over public discourse. Expecting all journalists to deeply understand these issues might be unrealistic.
#Pragmatism vs. Idealism:
Journalists often face pragmatic concerns—they need to be where their audience is to remain relevant. If the “critical mass” of users moves to a platform like Bluesky, journalists might feel they have no choice but to follow, even if they have misgivings about the platform’s architecture or ownership. Their immediate need to disseminate information and sustain their careers can take precedence over abstract ethical concerns.
#The Complexity of the Problem:
The architecture of the public square is a deeply complex and interdisciplinary issue, involving technology, sociology, economics, and governance. Even experts in these fields debate the best ways to design digital public spaces. Expecting individual journalists to fully grasp these complexities and act accordingly might be holding them to an impossible standard.
#Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight of their actions?
This is a matter of perspective:
#Yes, to some extent:
Journalists Influence Public Opinion: Their actions have societal consequences. By legitimizing certain platforms, they help shape the broader media ecosystem and public discourse. As professionals who rely on and amplify these systems, they arguably have a responsibility to critically assess their choices.
Journalistic Standards Demand It: Journalism is not just a profession but a public service. A core principle of journalism is to act in the public interest, which includes recognizing and resisting structures that could harm democracy or public discourse.
Historical Precedent Exists: Some journalists and media organizations have resisted harmful systems in the past. For example, during periods of censorship or propaganda, certain journalists have gone underground, created alternative systems, or exposed the flaws of dominant institutions. This demonstrates that resistance is possible, even if it is difficult.
#No, it might be unfair:
Journalists Are Human: They are part of the same systems they critique and may not have the time, resources, or expertise to fully understand the broader implications of every decision they make. Their primary focus is often on reporting, not on systemic critique or activism.
Lack of Alternatives: In many cases, journalists have limited choices. If every major platform is centralized and controlled by private interests, it may not be realistic to expect them to find or create entirely new systems.
The Problem Is Structural, Not Individual: The issue of centralized social media platforms is a systemic one, requiring collective action and policy changes. Expecting individual journalists to solve these problems on their own is an unfair burden.
[trunkcated by lemmy comment length limit]
