Jack Dorsey mocks Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse plan, saying it's dystopian

Part of that is because Twitter is a far more alive means for discourse, for democratic processes to emerge & steer what gets raised. There's way less of the echo chamber. There's significantly more back & forth in the comments, way more cross-engagement, that highlights other views, that checks what's happening. On Facebook, the post & the link are primary & the comments are a mess, often a sea of amplification. Twitter- as a for the most part open discussion- is able to tap a "wisdom of the crowds" sensibility whereas Facebook is perpetually falling into dark rabbit holes.

But all of this... blaming the tools... it doesn't click with me, really. As unknowable & scary as algorithmic selection is, it seems like a distant second compared to what the real story is.

Isn't it obvious? It's us. It's humanity that is the problem. These are inherent problems with attention & broadcast, & how easy it is to feed on other people, to excite them & drive them to ends. Antagonism and zeal are a high-grade memetic weapons payload, and the easy democratic access to thought & conversation is easily subverted. We haven't much in the way of building up immunities- to this day, blocking people seems to be the one and only defense most people have online, and that is a shield which does nothing to contribute to general welfare, to helping align & raise up the infosphere.

We live in a dystopian world with dystopian fallen people. It's a much closer together world, much better stitched together. This was of course going to cause problems. But I cannot imagine the horror of going back, of trying to establish authoritarian & limited channels for communication that the info-scarce world of the past was limited to. I do have great hope for progress, but humanity must innovate openly together, must build our own overlays to ourselves better comprehend the world.

Twitter doesn't have a real-name policy.

Further, Twitter's own research shows they have more broadly amplified the right than the left. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953427 I for one could not be less shocked.

There is no great vast system working against a view. It's just not so. Governing a platform is hard, keeping things on the rails is hard. Not every decision is easy & clean & obvious. Saying- this is not a democratic platform, this doesn't allow open conversation, is working against me- seems patently clearly obviously heinously untrue. 99.999999999999% of conversations go unmediated, unhindered. To try to grind an axe over this is, to portray Twitter as some horrible biased agent twisting things to it's desired world view, is to me, is to threaten obvious social order that exists, is to call fire where there is none. It creates a sense of agency & power & competency & deliberateness which in no way reflects anything resembling reality.

Regarding "politics", I think publicly displaying some principles is preferable to the faux-neutrality with secret behind-the-scenes tinkering that Facebook does. It gives me the willies.

Twitter's own research shows they have more broadly amplified the right than the left. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953427 I for one could not be less shocked.

You (and temp8964) are engaged in, in my view, conspiratorial minded thinking. You imagine some great vast system working against a view. It's just not so. Governing a platform is hard, keeping things on the rails is hard. Not every decision is easy & clean & obvious. Taking the conspiratorial minded view, saying- this is not a democratic platform, this doesn't allow open conversation, is working against me- seems patently clearly obviously heinously untrue. To try to grind an axe over this is, to me, bogus. There's no evidence, no claim I can possibly imagine that justifies such extreme & radical shade casting.

The worst part was apparently the zuck is a bad chef and serve a cold meal.