Maybe Bluesky has "won"

A year ago, Bluesky was an empty place, I wanted to use it but there wasn't anything. Now its bustling, there are interesting posts and they receive thousands of likes.

On the other hand Twitter still feels like where things are actually happening but more and more feels like they are about to start terminating anyone with eyeglasses.

I was there when the Digg exodus happened, it doesn't feel like that. It's something else. It feels like Twitter becoming a monoculture and others are having their monoculture somewhere else because Bluesky also doesn't feel diverse to me - more like the opposite of Twitter.

> It feels like Twitter becoming a monoculture and others are having their monoculture somewhere else because Bluesky also doesn't feel diverse to me - more like the opposite of Twitter.

Generally, it seems to me that a lot of people are saying, basically, "I don't want to engage in a social network that isn't and echo chamber of my beliefs."

I find it incredibly sad. But it does feel like the direction society is moving toward.

"I find it incredibly sad. But it does feel like the direction society is moving toward."

How would you feel about, multiple times a day, being required to defend your core beliefs that you find trivially true? Or even being constantly exposed to folks who you tangentially know presenting a constant barrage of ideas that you find stupid and mean in ways that explicitly target you and yours?

After many years of being around that (I'm a queer/non-binary, an atheist, and politically far left) I stopped enjoying it and just started blocking folks.

I still seek out contrary opinions- that is why I regularly look at HN.

However, in my daily feed of stuff like "pictures of my nieces" and "birth/death announcements from my larger community" I don't really feel like I need to be confronted by folks who consider me to be literally demonic.

And, for the record, I don't expect those same people to be constantly subjected to my own opinions.

So it doesn't feel sad for me: if you consider places like "churches" or "chambers of commerce meetings" to be "safe spaces" for particular kinds of folks, then it just seems "normal".

So basically you don’t actually want diversity of thought. That’s fine if it’s what you want but at least be honest and admit it. Let’s not redefine standard terms please, it makes it hard to have a discussion.

no, to my mind there's diversity, and there's "there are always two sides to everything and both have to be given equal consideration". the latter is a huge mistake and is how we get climate change deniers and transphobes platformed in major newspapers.

But there are two sides to everything and both should be given equal consideration. There are also extremes on both sides that should be recognized and rejected as such. And the only way to sift out the two and make sure you're not accidentally skewing towards one extreme is to consistently try to understand other people's perspectives.

This practice is both educational—it helps you see where you might be wrong after all—and crucial for anyone who wants to actually make a difference in the world. Rejecting the perspectives of 50% of the population out of hand is a great way to lose popular support and elections.

Ok, two sides to this equation:

Lolinder has no right to continue existing.

Lolinder has every right to continue existing.

Explain why you feel you personally are required to entertain the idea of both of those options. This is effectively what you are arguing must be done in the context of this thread.