Tabletop creators leave X for Bluesky in droves

[Zardnaar]

With respect,

1) Rejection of other viewpoints happens whether or not you are in an echo chamber. I happens here between people of opposing viewpoints all the time. This generally arises, not from being in an echo chamber, but from having an emotional stake in being the one who is correct.

2) The accusation of being in an echo chamber generally comes in the form of, "All you people are in an echo chamber, for not listening to what I say." Meanwhile the body of what the accuser said is found to be at least rude, if not abusive.

If you act like a jerk, you cannot successfully play the "you are in an echo chamber" card.

I'm saying it's an echo chamber based on observation. I never used Twitter, created an account or installed it. Main reason I thought the concept alone was stupid all the way back in 2010 or whenever when I learnt about it.

This leads people to having blindspots. You yourself told me XYZ can't happen (SCOTUS decision) and it did. I can read and belief trumped what was right there in black and white.

You have billionaires and crappy regimes manipulating things until reality kicks you in the face. I freely admit I'm fairly cynical I have very little faith in my own countrymen and none in rest of humanity.

We blame it but it's a reflection of us ultimately. I'm more it's making a bad situation worse and people are willingly engaging with it.

 

[Umbran]

I'm saying it's an echo chamber based on observation. I never used Twitter, created an account or installed it. Main reason I thought the concept alone was stupid all the way back in 2010 or whenever when I learnt about it.

And the perception of someone who doesn't use it means... what, exactly?

I am not a heavy user of either, mind you. I'm mostly there for cat pictures.

This leads people to having blindspots.

Folks who don't use social media still have blindspots. This isn't about social media echo chambers. It comes from choosing really bad news sources, generally.

 

[trappedslider]

And the perception of someone who doesn't use it means... what, exactly?

I am not a heavy user of either, mind you. I'm mostly there for cat pictures.

I use it to interact w3ith some of my favorite content creators

 

[Argyle King]

With respect,

1) Rejection of other viewpoints happens whether or not you are in an echo chamber. I happens here between people of opposing viewpoints all the time. This generally arises, not from being in an echo chamber, but from having an emotional stake in being the one who is correct.

2) The accusation of being in an echo chamber generally comes in the form of, "All you people are in an echo chamber, for not listening to what I say." Meanwhile the body of what the accuser said is found to be at least rude, if not abusive.

If you act like a jerk, you cannot successfully play the "you are in an echo chamber" card.

I can only speak for my own feelings. Rejection of viewpoints isn't an issue. Yes, there is some good feeling from being correct. However, different opinions are not something I've ever had an issue with. I'm not an omnipotent omnipresent being; I make mistakes.

If someone feels differently than I do, I would like to understand why and hear from them about what they base their viewpoint upon.

Even when it comes to opinion, if someone can explain why they think a particular way, I can respect that without agreeing with it. In some cases, gaining a new perspective or learning a previously unknown piece of information has lead to modifying my own views.

What I see as "echoes" are what I have already expressed: the same handful of established talking points without underlying substance.

There are people who are jerks and perhaps they should approach others differently, but someone being a jerk isn't mutually exclusive with having better information.

Yes, there are people who are jerks. Likewise, how you say something can often be just as important as what you are saying. At the same time, sometimes reality is harsh -even when we don't like it.

 

[Umbran]

There are people who are jerks and perhaps they should approach others differently, but someone being a jerk isn't mutually exclusive with having better information.

If you actually have better information, you shouldn't have to use personal abuse as a discussion tactic.

And, as I have noted before, there are plenty of ways of getting good information without the side order of abuse. The number of times that good information is only available from jerks is vanishingly small. Given two sources with the same information, which are you going to choose, the jerk, or the one who can treat people decently?

 

[Argyle King]

If you actually have better information, you shouldn't have to use personal abuse as a discussion tactic.

And, as I have noted before, there are plenty of ways of getting good information without the side order of abuse. The number of times that good information is only available from jerks is vanishingly small. Given two sources with the same information, which are you going to choose, the jerk, or the one who can treat people decently?

In a situation where two sources have the exact same information (with 0 deviations,) I would most likely choose whichever source were more cordial.

On your end, would you intentionally choose a source with a history of faulty information solely because it makes you feel better over a source that you don't particularly care for but provides better results?

 

[Umbran]

On your end, would you intentionally choose a source with a history of faulty information solely because it makes you feel better over a source that you don't particularly care for but provides better results?

I'm not talking about "don't particularly care for", because that's not the typical case I have seen. I'm talking about, "laces their information with abuse and insults", as that is more common in my personal experience.

So, I don't accept the softening you are presenting there.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not talking about "don't particularly care for", because that's not the typical case I have seen. I'm talking about, "laces their information with abuse and insults", as that is more common in my personal experience.

So, I don't accept the softening you are presenting there.

Fair point, though in the hypothetical situation presented, what would your choice be?

 

[Umbran]

Fair point, though in the hypothetical situation presented, what would your choice be?

Trying to hedge me in with hypotheticals? Please. This is the internet we are talking about. I am never left with a choice between two, and only two, sources of information.

I mean, you quoted it from me already, but seem to have ignored it: The number of times that good information is only available from jerks is vanishingly small.

We can stack on top of that the point that the frequency that some chud on social media is the only source of good information, and I must act on that information now, is not large enough to concern ourselves with. We always have time to look elsewhere.

So, really, blocking jerks on social media is the way to go. Your social media is not the only place you should go for information anyway. You can always take a bit of time to go elsewhere to get good information, including about opposing viewpoints.

We do not need to settle for accepting abuse.

 

[Mannahnin]

Speaking only for myself; I never felt "abused" during the very brief time I had a Twitter account. I simply didn't enjoy the community and the general vibe. A lot of conversations seemed to be a conflict between competing enclaves of echo chambers.

For me the issue was never anything resembling an echo chamber, but the tendency of dramatized hot takes and burns getting retweeted/shared more. Twitter did seem to algorithmically amplify the most extreme takes, and the new management hasn't helped this at all.

Although that being said, it did also amplify a lot of good jokes and satire, which was one of the better aspects of the platform. It had some great aspects of immediacy and access to a lot of journalists and politicians, which allowed a lot of people to interact with local news and politics more easily.

It also makes me roll my eyes when contemporary news will have a headline saying something like "...fans outraged...," and the actual story is that people on Twitter were upset.

Agreed, the tendency of crappy news aggregators and even major news media to fill airtime with puff stories based on nothing but tweets was irritating. Especially given that it further incentivized sensationalized hot takes.

Of course Twitter's sad descent into ideologically-driven censorship and promoting hate speech and abuse since its acquisition has made it a less and less useful platform, leading to Mastodon, Threads, and BlueSky offering people better-run alternatives.