Moj komentar na komentar Roberta Wrighta (spodaj) je, da so množični družbeni mediji (enako kot forumi) odraz naše kulture komuniciranja. Kadarkoli daste ljudem možnost, da prosto komentirajo, dobite pač cel spekter njihovih komentarjev na osnovi mnenj in osebne kulture celotne družbene palete posameznikov. In ta “plebejska” raven komuniciranja “plebsa” pač izobraženi eliti ni in ne more biti všeč. V času tradicionalnih tiskanih in digitalnih medijev je bilo mnenje “plebsa” strogo moderirano in tega širokega spektra njegovih mnenj ni bilo mogoče videti ali prebrati. Na odprtih družbenih medijih, dostopnih vsem, jih pač vidimo v vsej njihovi širini (ali bedi). Zato Blueskyju sledi ista usoda kot je Twitterju (X). Razen seveda, če ga bodo “zaprli” samo za “elito” oziroma filtrirali (cenzurirali). Ampak potem ne bo dosegel množičnosti in ne bo postal donosen za lastnike. Zakaj bi vlagali v nedonosne projekte? Torej…

Princeton psychologist Molly Crockett, who studies the dynamics of social media, took to Bluesky this week to argue that the recent exodus of liberals from X (aka Twitter) could be good for American democracy.

Crockett’s case focuses on what she views as X’s bread and butter: spreading outrage. “Twitter makes money by keeping you online, and a reliable way to do that is to make you outraged and train you to create content that makes others outraged,” she wrote.

But will Bluesky really wind up being much less, or any less, tribalizing than Twitter? A cursory glance at our own feeds suggests that anger-inducing content on Bluesky is alive and well.

Nadaljujte z branjem→