Ironically, the level of vitriol in response to @jemima.bsky.social's column on the echoey nature of the BlueSky chamber has matched any twitter pile on I've ever seen, only with an added dose of self-righteousness. (1/11)
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
If you search "Jemima" on here you can see hordes of people screaming that she's a Nazi, and even some trying to carry out amateur genealogy on her family tree, all for saying that their preferred social media platform isn't a perfect utopia. Wild! (2/11)
she quite plainly said a place where you can come across virulent racism is preferable to the echo chamber created by bluesky. the Nazi part of that was merely implied, but you know, i really gotta wonder why y'all mourn the lack of virulent racism
I don't think #1 really needs explaining, but on #2: she actually concluded that a theoretical digital town square (which no longer exists precisely because of Elon) would be preferable to all these little walled gardens.
Maybe this should’ve been more explicit given widespread confusion! (4/11)
But there's also strong disagreement about this place creating "walled gardens". If she thinks she's in a walled garden, she needs to follow a lot more than the 250 or so accounts she currently follows, because of the lack of an algorithm here.
I agree that's a fundamental issue here, following just a couple of hundred accounts doesn't work, at least not for the kind of experience she is expecting.
A big irony here is that Elon and his minions have actually dunked on Jemima for a past column (presciently!) saying that he has turned twitter into a dying platform! (5/11)
Americans are also reading a British columnists in a British newspaper, laughing at her silly British name, howling they don't get her British references & missing the British context (Bsky migration post-Elon UK riot tweets)
The most important "British context" is that for self-important intellectual masturbators in Britain, transphobia is regarded as "brave truth telling that should be rewarded" and on BlueSky that same transphobia will get you yelled at and socially ostracized. That's what she's complaining about.
I'm one of those Brits that has moved across in earnest in the past six weeks. It's nice over here, I wish it had more people who engage with financial journalism, but hopefully that will come.
But Jemima has a point on the echo chamber, particularly i/r/t the glorification of block lists. (7/11)
I mostly agree with your defense of the piece and criticisms of Bluesky's reaction, but if you can deny the unintended hilarity of "Stokes Newington Drinks Party" I'm not sure the internet is the place for you. It's amazing. Making fun of something like that should binds all of humanity
FT may be British in origin, but it’s a global paper. And I think what irks people about the Stoke Newington ref is that it’s as exclusionary as she thinks Bluesky is (to say nothing of the tired trope of who counts as “elitist” and who doesn’t).
Mate. I’m English, I live in the US, and I think her article is a terribly-written excuse for an argument whose references wouldn’t land outside of her specific cadre of upper-middle class twits in Islington.
I think what is really making people angry is that what she is actually complaining about is that TERFs are defenestrated from this platform pretty quickly
I suppose we wouldn't have mocked her very insular British references as much if the whole piece hadn't been her lecturing *other* people for their siloed perspective and if she hadn't made a point of pushing her parochial references on us in screenshots of a firewalled article.
STFU you Nazi tosser. We're here too and we get it. She's another TERF witch with a lady boner for 70-year-olds that shit themselves. You're a dishonest prick.
It's not a zero-sum game. Just because she drew the ire of one group of people doesn't mean a (theoretically) opposing group has to accept every facile idea that comes to her head.
Bob, she's a bore trolling for attention with a take that she thinks is clever but is actually quite tedious. It worked for her; thousands of strangers now know who she is.
How about I block her, and you give her a raise? We'll all be happy. Fair deal?
See, I'd be interested in reading a treatment of that point, because I very much disagree -- not about BlueSky, per se, but about the desirability of a "digital town square", which I think is in fact deeply undesirable.
And regardless if it is desirable or not (I agree with you on this one) the concept of the "digital town square" as they describe it never truly existed, and to ding a platform for not reaching an ideal that none have come close to or ever will should be something to be rightfully pushed back on.
There are two "places" in her prior paragraph, hence the ambiguity when she says, "such."
I took "such" to man actual physical square where the visceral reality of a person is apparent, but it's really the reader's choice.
I'm so sick of people with no skin in the game when it comes to schools of thoughts that are threats to marginalized groups existence arguing that letting those ideas out into the open is actually good for everyone.
The assumption that BlueSky is a walled garden is being made without support both by you and by her. Her article doesn't explicitly state it but the only reason she mentions is that Nazi content isn't tolerated. So that's what people latched into. If that wasn't meant that's just poor writing.
This conception of a "town square" is fictitious. There has never been a community that does not retain the right to exclude people from it. Nor should there be, since that right (free association) is a fundamental liberal right that is critical for moral action.
2) There were pillories, beatings, excommunications and other regulations that made those town squares nazi-proof, unless the town liked nazis, then they were jew-proof. Never in human history has there been a public venue where people were not disciplined for unpleasant views and attitudes.
But it's not a walled garden. It's 10 million individual gardens, some walled, some not. And many of the gardens are not about politics. Social media platforms are about more subjects than politics.
“Some people prefer a more enjoyable social media experience to a digital town square where they have to see engagement farmers posting videos of people getting killed as well as actual Nazis saying Hitler was right”. Damn bro, you got me with that one.
Think this was pile-on cascade:
Appears to argue wld prefer risk coming across vile racist content than use a silo (Bsky)
That assumed to mean: 'criticism of X (racism)' is less strong than 'criticism of Bsky (not enuf disagreement)'
Evolves to: dullness is a bigger downer than racism
Cue hysteria.
But you can argue everyone who prefers X to Bsky must also be aware of the risk of being exposed to racist content. So the same 'logic' could and presumably should be applied to all of those people too.
Part of the problem is that she didn't argue *anything* coherently.
X is terrible, but also bsky should be more of a "town square," but also a "town square" without Nazis may not be possible, but there's *definitely* something bad about bsky users liking this space.
She literally said that it would be a better platform if there were more right wing assholes here and accused us all of not listening to voices outside of here. So she kinda did say it would be better if there were more Nazis here ..
but that's the point: i'm fairly certain in the last paragraph that JK is referring to a hypothetical digital town square that no longer exists, rather than Twitter/X (which is no longer a digital town square)
I don't care if she is British or if she is Taiwanese. Being a writer paid to cover "financial" things is one thing. Telling an entire social media platform they should go back to a model that was increasingly toxifying, rife with bots & scams instead of our garden? GTFOH.
1. Really? Bc her complaint about a place populated mainly by people intolerant to nazis being an "echo chamber" seems to mean that people should accept nazis here to prevent that effect.
Maybe she meant something else (what?) but she didn't make it clear at all.
I feel like mild critics like myself think that if we give credence to her beliefs in this instance: to wit, there’s not enough racism on Bluesky, we’d be given credence to her other beliefs: to wit, trans people should not exist
That "Stoke Newington drinks party with the truffle flavoured crisps" analogy trolled us, the target audience beautifully. It succeeded in generating more engagement than its rather bland and innocuous "serious" themes would otherwise have merited.
Any other day a white guy avatar tells an entire social site to search "Jemima" and it probably isn't anything to do with whatever this tempest in a teapot is.
Sir, I say this in good faith: based solely on what you describe here, this is not the same solar system as what frequently occurs in Twitter pile-ons, and I would you to consider what it means that you think it is.
is it lost on you what you perceive as exclusive echo chambers are the reflections of your own that we hear on a regular basis and you're only catching that same energy back?
you're not entitled to promote shit ideas in bad faith to make things worse
Maybe but the nice thing about Bluesky is you can just block those people and not worry about having to interact with them. Kind of like not going to certain bars if you don’t like the atmosphere
They are and it is a more civilized discourse. That’s factual.
The vast majority of intelligent people aren’t going to fall for that stuff anyways.
It’s no big deal
Can you show some examples of this "nazi" screaming?
I have seen many people break down what she's said as being silly, vapid, stupid including her bizarre assertion that a place that welcomes Nazis is better than one that does not.
you can question whether this is "screaming" but her are two people calling her a Nazi (one on quite baroque fashion, saying she wants to construct a gas chamber)
seems a little extreme a response to a column about BlueSky being an echo chamber, but hey, JK did make a case for freer speech i guess!
2/?
But seriously: When Trump is recorded saying, around April, "They're not people, they're animals!", there is nothing to call him but a Nazi. And if you gush over his son's "glow up", and wear a hat promoting him, you are also a Nazi.
3/3
When you write articles about partying at Mar-a-Lago and "bonding" with people there over "personal matters", you are, to quote myself, the kind of person who, 80 years ago, would write articles praising Ilse Koch's charming and decorative lampshade collection.
See if I yell out "Nazi" and the echo that comes back is "Suck!" is that not a good thing? Is that not a "chamber" all decent, ethical, intelligent, empathic, historically literate people should want?
dude she's just wrong and annoying. Bluesky is so far from perfect, never boasted utopia, it's literally just a bunch of people arguing with each other. But Twitter banned me twice, it's authoritarian.
If it's such a good point, where are the converse major media pieces demanding that libs and progressives start stinking places like Gab and Truth Social up in the same manner with which the journos constantly clamor for nazis to post here?
It seems quite presumptuous to assume what people want from a social media platform or how they should use it. Some people want a bubble. There is no way for the mythical "town square" to work with millions of people in it.
I love the fact I've subscribed to enough lists on here that I'm automatically insulated from these worthless British journos. They're all blocked through blocklists from most high follower accounts from day one.
There's plenty to disagree with in the assumptions which seem to underlie her argument, and quite a lot of people have, quite politely. As ever many find it easier to attack her presumed motives. A lazy refusal to think is certainly not confined to X. But I do think her column was mainly codswallop.
I find @jemima.bsky.social's takes to be perfectly reasonable most of the time.
I think the challenge is that when people hear "echo chamber" they really hear "like minded" or "reasonable" like there can't possibly be other ideas that have validity.
I'm gonna block the SHIT out of anyone for any damn reason I please. Especially if they believe I shouldn't have rights! Jemima is a TERF & a bigot. You BOTH think you're the smartest in the room but you couldn't outwit a nematode. We see you. We see through your dogwhistles. Get the fuck outta here
I've not seen the vitriol just the amusing responses or the mildly defensive, but it has triggered quite a lot of response, more than I would have expected, especially for those of us who could not read the article
at the risk of appearing contentious, point of the piece (which I understood) could have been a 300 character post expressed clearly, and there would have been no pile on. but that's not an article for clicks. but don't then write said article, and be disingenuous afterwards about what you've done ?
I mean it’s in column form because she has a weekly column she has to write as part of her job lol. The tyranny of 850 words is that it’s both long enough to annoy people and short enough not to include all the nuance to assuage them.
yep, all understood there. surely the article is a success, huge engagement level, lots of people feeling interested enough to post their views in response. the fact a lot disagree with some of what the article said (or maybe how it was said), doesn't detract from mission accomplished.
I’m sure if she tried she could have come up with a different series of 850 words to write, instead of “850 words guaranteed to make the writer look like a twerp and generate negative reactions from the demographic she is writing about”
One suspects she deliberately chose to write what she wrote.
Kudos to her for generating (what may be) the most activity across the broadest spectrum of people in this place. And for getting both a lot of good discussion and a lot of 'inadvertently proving x point' behaviour. Solid popcorn stuff, much appreciated.
Gotta fill the column inches with something, I guess, even if it contradicts what she said just last month, like when she complained about people who criticized echo chambers.
Got myself in trouble many years ago when I wrote a snarky letter to the editor of the local paper when a TV anchor turned opinion columnist spent a column writing about the difficulty of finding an English-layout typewriter while she was summering in France.
1. Write troll story
2. Feign shock at the response which was specifically intended
3. Thin-skinned colleagues circle wagons and are offended people were offended
4. Worm eats own tail unto infinity, accomplishes nothing
Ironic that your response to the communities response proving my point to the columns response to Bluesky proving my point has in fact demonstrated my point perfectly 🤔
So much this. Those who accuse others with win they disagree of creating an echo chamber and not being able to handle criticism of their beliefs are the specialest of snowflakes totally triggered by criticism of what they’ve written.
Neither one of you spends much time on this website. Jemima posts only once or twice a week. You hadn’t posted here for five days. Neither of you is qualified to have an opinion about this platform. You’ve done no actual reporting or research. This is all just arrogant bloviating.
As a reporter I would do some research and spend a good amount of time on a platform interacting with it and doing an in-depth analysis. But I guess you don’t require any journalism out of your reporters. The story itself lacked any actual argument or support for its thesis. Embarrassing.
Sorry to double reply, but I haven't been on socials a lot lately and am just catching up-- you want us to sympathize with a woman who was photographed wearing a MAGA hat and has been chummy with TERFs? You want us to let HER into our echo chamber?
My theory is that a lot of arseholes left Twitter and came here because they were getting a hard time there, because they were arseholes.
Most people here are quite nice and sensible but the arseholes tend to stand out from the crowd by being arseholes when there's an opportunity such as this.
I'm not seeing you engage with the best faith version of the criticism - her article did not articulate which views in particular were un/acceptable here. Instead you're doing the same thing and dismissing all the criticism is "vitriol".
What is with you guys thinking that the rest of us are obliged to listen to the opinions of racists and bigots? Why would any of us want to voluntarily do that?
I don’t think that. As I say lower down in the thread, I’ve recently migrated away from X to Bsky myself. I’m just trying to add some nuance as I think the nuance has been missed (which may well mean JK’s column could have been clearer, sure)
I think the accusations of "echo chamber" are ludicrous on their face - especially when we see what's happening on Twitter and what Republicans/conservatives actually want - but the rest of us have heard their opinions. We know what motivates them. We get it. No reason to keep enduring it.
The echo chamber accusation has been bouncing around since BlueSky's beginning and it is always fundamentally underpinned by the same thing: "YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME AND IF YOU DON'T EVERYTHING IS UNFAIR!!!"
how do you write a 30 post thread on the criticism of her without mentioning she’s a vicious transphobe who wrote this article because she was criticized for transphobia
Maybe if she'd framed things differently it might have gone down better.
The takeaway of "put up with scumbags or else you're an echo chamber" doesn't fly. She even says that Twitter is terrible.... but somehow there's a problem with Bluesky?
You've left out that she's a transphobe Robert. Therefore you leave out that we're INCLUDING HER in the worthless pieces of fucking shit that shouldn't be allowed here. Just shut the fuck up and go back to twitter if you're THAT DESPERATE for the freedoms of bigoted hacks.
I suppose you and Jemima Peddlesmuck didn’t experience many pile-ons using Twitter…must be coz your views fit right in with the ‘vile racist content.’ Toddle off, back to the Nazi echo chamber, there’s a good chap
It’s fine to call the column stupid. I think it’s a bit much to call JK a Nazi. But I don’t think that should be banned speech or anything, I just think it’s a bit OTT.
Previously you commented that you weren't going to condemn anyone you weren't an expert on. Where have you suddenly found the expertise to confirm JK Rowling is not a Nazi, and said commenters are incorrect?
Not sure what OTT means. (Is that an abbreviation they use in Stoke Newington?) In any case I’m not calling her anything, just noting that she wrote and published a whole column about how she prefers spaces filled with, in her words, vile racist content.
No I think the point here is that a genuine digital town square no longer exists *precisely because* of what Elon has done over there. As I say, Jemima has criticised the turn Twitter/X has taken before and caught shit from Elon himself.
I agree could have been better edited to avoid confusion.
The House Elves are in racialized chattle slavery, and Hermione's attempts to free them are depicted as silly and useless. The only difference between the bad guys and good guys is a "blood quotient", but fundamentally they want society to be the same: horrible.
and she literally denied nazi crimes months ago. if someone has trouble believing that: what she said legally counts as denying nazi crimes in germany. and who’d know better than that?
Lol, I'm not gonna read the rest of this thread because claiming that as a match to anything you've seen on Twitter is either because you have just had you're first experience outside your safe space or you're being intellectually dishonest. Probably both, and you probably consider this vitriol.
For TERFs, Twitter is their safe space. They're protected from any blowback they get there and so many right-wing assholes, Russian bots, and Elmo-approved trolls.
They get criticism here and it stings because it's the first time in a long time they've experienced that.
My response to the "echo chamber" thing: I choose not to spend time with people who have views I find distasteful in real life, so why should I allow them into my home to spout their opinions?
I shall block quite happily. I shall encourage others to block too. This is a positive place, keep hate out
i don’t understand what’s ironic about this in the first place. it seems like there’s a subconscious expectation in the british journalist class that left wing people should be tolerant or polite. that doesn’t align with left wing politics or beliefs or people.
Not actually what she said/all she said but being disingenuous is easier, no? So a “horde” rightfully identified her sympathies with a greater number of fucking idiots & pieces of shit on Twitter. She was wrong. The end
Riiight...
So AIUI she wrote something some people didn't like so they looked for other stuff she wrote and people she'd talked to on Twitter and decided she was a Nazi or something and started insulting her.
Have I got that right?
I mean he's British so basically emotionally retarded and too scared about workplace repercussions and posh cunt respectability shit to realize they're defending a piece of trash.
You know, all the hand wringing about the dangers of echo chambers would seem a LITTLE less disingenuous if the people doing it didn't toss around casual transphobia 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺.
Makes it VERY unconvincing when you insist that it's TOTALLY not you just demanding people be forced to see slurs.
And there's the transphobia straight away lmao. Of course you cowardly hack cunts don't know how to jack off women. Because you're fucking stupid and you're fucking Nazis.
Question, why do you think you are so much more valid than trans people when they bring happiness and joy to lives and all you do is make people miserable?
usually you either rub her penis up and down with a loose grip or put 2 fingers in her vagina and move in and out while moving the fingers sometimes in a "come here" type of finger crook, while simultaneously stimulating her clitoris. usually if you ask her she will guide you on how. hope this helps
You have 171 posts here. How would you know? Follow 1000 people. Post 10,000 times. Then your opinion of what it’s like to be active here will have worth. Or don’t because you don’t like it! But then don’t claim expertise.
I haven't read the article, and I don't think this place is an echo chamber, but I would argue that people can be active here without posting much. I'm here multiple hours a day, reading my feed, but I don't have much to add. *shrug*
I'm pretty similar. Though I spend less time on social media platforms than I used to. I do a lot of reposting others to pass along ideas or books, etc, that I think are important. I also block people who are abusive towards me or others. I'm not sure that's an echo chamber or just 1/
I do agree that there have been unwelcome over personal, unpleasant and not really responsive comments.
On the other hand she has not really engaged effectively on 🦋 (judging by the number of people she follows and the number of posts) to make worthwhile judgements about the site
So my complaint is that I would expect a journalist (especially @financialtimes.com journalist from whom I have come to expect in depth personal research) to work rather harder at actually engaging in user experience rather than just piggy back on other’s data (eg John Burn Murdoch)
Seems not to get the whole dynamic, and why appearing to call for tolerance of RW nutjobs while admitting that Twitter/Musk are horrible went down really badly.
Apparently an "edit" in the article didn't help but YMMV.
I find the trick here to be follow lots of people but avoid the US (not UK) left. Even (especially) the ones I agree with. I get plenty of viewpoints I disagree with but avoid the pile on stuff. All social media can be an echo chamber for users who want it to be.
I’m still learning how to make this platform lively for me.
Part of that is trying to understand what drives engagement through the design of the platform (eg feeds and starter packs) and what I need to do to make it livelier for me.
I'm posting - and I am sure I have not got it right yet! - on a range of topics (not just politics) that interest me and might just engage others therefore. Languages, maps, Catalunya, and a few more.
The business of politics, melded with hobby interests?
Yes. That mixture of serious issues and complex range of reasonable responses…plus stuff just for fun, relaxation…cooking, walking, reading, travel a funny or touching event.
I like it here. I don't get worked up about silos and echoes. I sometimes block people I agree with just for being obnoxious. It does sometimes interest me to think that there are other universes on blsky I've cut off or don't have access to, but not overly.
For me the whole thing is a non argument as it's predicated on both X and Bluesky existing to foster political discourse, which they aren't. You can spend days on here immersed in TTRPG chats or marvelling at Anime fan art. Political discourse has used them, but that's different
the real issue here is that Twitter is no longer set up to drive engagement to media outlets, and they desperately want Bluesky to replace Twitter's role as a rage-bait engagement farm
Comments
1. That Nazis should be allowed on BlueSky
2. That X remains better than Bluesky
(3/11)
Maybe this should’ve been more explicit given widespread confusion! (4/11)
Let me know if you'd like to know why.
But there's also strong disagreement about this place creating "walled gardens". If she thinks she's in a walled garden, she needs to follow a lot more than the 250 or so accounts she currently follows, because of the lack of an algorithm here.
Elon has enabled the con artists, racists, and Nazis to drown out any sort of existence in that town square.
And she still chooses Elon’s hate filled universe.
That’s why she’s being called out.
V reminiscent of this lol 👇🏻(6/11)
https://www.gawkerarchives.com/culture/i-should-be-able-to-mute-america
But Jemima has a point on the echo chamber, particularly i/r/t the glorification of block lists. (7/11)
Welcome to America, Bob.
...they have a history, Robert.
"This is just for me mates"
Ok, Chief.
Most of the lists where @jemima.bsky.social got are related to her views beyond that.
Most of Bluesky won’t give open TERFs (Racists,Scammers, Xenophobes, Misogynists,…) a space to grow… we know what happens when people do.
Bob, she's a bore trolling for attention with a take that she thinks is clever but is actually quite tedious. It worked for her; thousands of strangers now know who she is.
How about I block her, and you give her a raise? We'll all be happy. Fair deal?
A big 🇧🇷 newspaper translated it and people are asking why should they care about her “take”.
Soon the fact that she is a Trump stanning TERF will also become known too.
I took "such" to man actual physical square where the visceral reality of a person is apparent, but it's really the reader's choice.
The idea is so stupid as to automatically be disqualifying.
The *internet* is the town square. The sites are the various stores open around the town square.
No decent person is interested in hearing your opinion on anything Nazi appeaser.
Appears to argue wld prefer risk coming across vile racist content than use a silo (Bsky)
That assumed to mean: 'criticism of X (racism)' is less strong than 'criticism of Bsky (not enuf disagreement)'
Evolves to: dullness is a bigger downer than racism
Cue hysteria.
X is terrible, but also bsky should be more of a "town square," but also a "town square" without Nazis may not be possible, but there's *definitely* something bad about bsky users liking this space.
... OK?
Do you really find it ‘strange’ that people extrapolated the 2 implications listed, or are you being disingenuous?
I think a fair criticism is this point should've been clearer!
https://bsky.app/profile/bondhack.bsky.social/post/3l4so2yu66q2r
this dude is posting on bluesky, for some reason, when he could be posting on Twitter where bigoted cons are championed by narcissistic liar Musk
My takeaway, condensed: "a DTS can't exist but is preferable to any safe space".
Where am I wrong?
Spoiler: I'm not. So, the criticism of her take is warranted. It's in service of a harmful fallacy.
Yes! Yes it's true! It's all true!
Maybe she meant something else (what?) but she didn't make it clear at all.
You can somehow guarantee that ALL of the people you're referring to had THAT objection, and not a single one had a more reasonable objection?
Please share with us how you acquired this mind-reading ability.
are the opinions bouncing around inside our deranged little "echo chamber" reflected by society as opinions held by a MAJORITY of people
or a MINORITY
you're not entitled to promote shit ideas in bad faith to make things worse
nor are you entitled to be welcomed
That’s 0.03%
Are we going to have a for over that??
The vast majority of intelligent people aren’t going to fall for that stuff anyways.
It’s no big deal
But yeah, the completely unhinged response by some to very very mild criticism certainly reflects poorly and perhaps helps make her point for her.
I have seen many people break down what she's said as being silly, vapid, stupid including her bizarre assertion that a place that welcomes Nazis is better than one that does not.
Is that what you're talking about?
seems a little extreme a response to a column about BlueSky being an echo chamber, but hey, JK did make a case for freer speech i guess!
1/?
But seriously: When Trump is recorded saying, around April, "They're not people, they're animals!", there is nothing to call him but a Nazi. And if you gush over his son's "glow up", and wear a hat promoting him, you are also a Nazi.
When you write articles about partying at Mar-a-Lago and "bonding" with people there over "personal matters", you are, to quote myself, the kind of person who, 80 years ago, would write articles praising Ilse Koch's charming and decorative lampshade collection.
Or is a little bit Nazi okay?
What does it say then?
See if someone says they prefer the place with Nazis over the place without Nazis... well what conclusion can we come to about her opinion on Nazis?
Context is important, no?
https://bsky.app/profile/bondhack.bsky.social/post/3l4so2yu66q2r
Weird how no one seems able to defend what was actually said in the article.
No one needs an echo chamber full of Nazis with their constant sieg-heiling, and whatnot.
You lost.
I saw mirth and puns.
A little eye rolling. Okay, maybe a lot of eye rolling.
Her article was laughable, not insightful.
Really? Death threats, rape threats? Bomb threats called into her employer? Creeps showing up at her home and place of work, and harassing her family?
That's all par for the course for anyone targeted by the big right wing chuds on Twitter
Yeah okay lol
I think the challenge is that when people hear "echo chamber" they really hear "like minded" or "reasonable" like there can't possibly be other ideas that have validity.
Nuance isn’t y’all’s thing
One suspects she deliberately chose to write what she wrote.
Intellectual dishonesty is much easier if you have walking amnesia.
Carpenter blames tools, and whatnot. The least convincing of all defenses.
1. Write troll story
2. Feign shock at the response which was specifically intended
3. Thin-skinned colleagues circle wagons and are offended people were offended
4. Worm eats own tail unto infinity, accomplishes nothing
If you cannot handle criticism when you're wrong, go back to your filter bubble.
Why in the WORLD
Most people here are quite nice and sensible but the arseholes tend to stand out from the crowd by being arseholes when there's an opportunity such as this.
It is never anything more substantive than that.
Go back to X, bitch.
The takeaway of "put up with scumbags or else you're an echo chamber" doesn't fly. She even says that Twitter is terrible.... but somehow there's a problem with Bluesky?
Maybe she should have spent time here first.
if she wants attention so badly, she should try doing something interesting or fun instead
people are not obligated to respond the way you want them to
No, really, leave.
Go.
This is neither sarcastic or hypothetical, I really do mean "get out".
I actually don’t think she meant “X>Bsky” but agree that good writing should be clear so it could have been better
https://bsky.app/profile/bondhack.bsky.social/post/3l4so2yu66q2r
I agree could have been better edited to avoid confusion.
It is quite ambiguous writing, unfortunately, and could have been set out more clearly.
deny nazi crimes
sympathise with nazis
you are a nazi. jk is a nazi. it’s fine to say so.
They get criticism here and it stings because it's the first time in a long time they've experienced that.
I shall block quite happily. I shall encourage others to block too. This is a positive place, keep hate out
Maybe there's a reason for that.
Oh, you barely use https://bsky.app. Okay. Continue to.
I understand how popular these circle jerks are when journalists' friends get criticism but in the end you just make a bigger mess
The fact that they are just circling the wagons instead of taking a half a second of self reflection is notable, though.
So AIUI she wrote something some people didn't like so they looked for other stuff she wrote and people she'd talked to on Twitter and decided she was a Nazi or something and started insulting her.
Have I got that right?
https://bsky.app/profile/trans.bsky.social/post/3l4r7w5bbkm2s
some real “we all have 2.5-inch penises don’t we fellas” energy here
https://youtu.be/-gQ-hA_vF60?si=ftviv2O4zkhMmi6o
Makes it VERY unconvincing when you insist that it's TOTALLY not you just demanding people be forced to see slurs.
Embarrassing.
Jacks off
A symptom of the post Brexit decline
https://youtu.be/xik-y0xlpZ0
Now leave
Then look up "figure of speech" on the search engine of your choice you fucking dork
People usually post through it and go for the meltdown, kudos!
You’ve got what it takes to do just fine here.
https://open.spotify.com/track/4Ph3klfwNk9JT2LtiaYLtl?si=1k5o6So5T5q85rM5IZhgow
https://bsky.app/profile/bondhack.bsky.social/post/3l4tdlvxnel2l
Good thinking with the cartoon avatar cause fuckkkkkkkkkkkkk you’re beat
Crab Fart from this moment forward.
On the other hand she has not really engaged effectively on 🦋 (judging by the number of people she follows and the number of posts) to make worthwhile judgements about the site
It felt lazy.
Seems not to get the whole dynamic, and why appearing to call for tolerance of RW nutjobs while admitting that Twitter/Musk are horrible went down really badly.
Apparently an "edit" in the article didn't help but YMMV.
https://bsky.app/profile/jemima.bsky.social/post/3l4sztvxsn42n
With regard to my opinion, that is!
Part of that is trying to understand what drives engagement through the design of the platform (eg feeds and starter packs) and what I need to do to make it livelier for me.
Follow people. Engage. Quote tweet,
Am I just posting on a v limited range of topics?
The business of politics, melded with hobby interests?
Like normal conversation
Your gal is posing with MAGA gear as "kitsch" and people are worried about pogroms fueled by Trump lies.
The UK JUST had riots based on racist lies.
You don't come across as serious here.
Nothing here has matched the worst of twitter.
Come on, man.
Your colleague had a bad take.
Let it go.
But no ... you instead are digging deeper.
Interesting approach.