You act like there’s some kind of alternative which there isn’t. Mastodon, which I’m sure you were going to mention, absolutely does not count because it’s a nightmare to use and they haven’t bothered to fix any of its problems.
So there is no viable alternative.
Also because it’s so awful to use, no one does use it, and so no one’s on the platform. After all, journalists need to go where the viewers are.
There is zero point being smug about your open source platform, if no one uses your open source platform.
News outlets should be spinning up their own federated social media instances, so that THEY control their own platform, akin to a website, or email addresses.
You do realise people would’ve switched to mastodon if it weren’t so inconvenient? People don’t care about the long term projections of Bluesky. They want Muskless Twitter and they got Muskless Twitter. Simple as that
I’m just really tired of telling people about the obvious, and every time history keeps repeating
I don’t believe it’s just convenience, it’s as you said, people don’t care about the long term. In anything.
A big corporate platform (or whatever else, like, say, oil companies vs climate protesters) will always have more resources, whether it’s for development or marketing, so people will always have to be a bit willing to not have full convenience for a better world
If we don’t think about the long term, what are we even thinking of instead?
Social media rises and falls just like any other fad or fashion. It’s a never-ending churn, as people (particularly, young people) inevitably crave something novel. There’s little use in fighting the cycle, just as there’d be little use in fighting the trendy choices of a teenager.
It’s frustrating to watch people en masse continue to make choices that don’t make sense. It turns out that a lot of people are much more driven to follow the crowd than to have (let alone stand by) personal principles or rational decisions. Thankfully, we’re not obligated to be like that. There’s always some sort of counter-culture that bucks the main trends, and honestly? That’s where the most interesting people tend to be.
If you feel driven to educate people on the futility of trends, then by all means, go for it. I just know it can be draining, and not everyone is going to be receptive. On the plus side, you sound like a rational person who actually thinks about their decisions - in a world full of followers, that can be pretty powerful.
Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving, in this case the very guy that caused their troubles in the first place.
Those are the very people supposed that are supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threat as well as mobilize the general population to defend against them.
But again they lead the population to the slaugtherhouse.
The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s is certainly the first thread unravelling our civilizations in favour of the hype con-mens and their billionaires backers and other monarchs trying to swallow humanity whole.
The commenter is expressing a deep critique of modern journalism and society at large, suggesting that journalists are failing in their responsibilities and are complicit in societal decline. Here’s a breakdown of what the commenter likely means:
#“Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving”
The commenter is criticizing journalists for following trends or popular movements (the “herd”) without critical thought. In this case, they’re pointing out the irony of journalists leaving X (formerly Twitter) for Bluesky, which is owned by Jack Dorsey, the same individual who they believe contributed to the issues with X in the first place.
#“Those are the very people supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threats”
Journalists are traditionally seen as watchdogs of society—tasked with investigating and exposing wrongs, informing the public of dangers, and holding power to account. The commenter believes that journalists are failing in this role and instead are following the crowd or serving the interests of the powerful.
#“Bow again they lead the population to the slaughterhouse”
This is a metaphor suggesting that journalists, instead of protecting society or providing guidance, are leading people into harmful or exploitative systems (like Bluesky, which the commenter views as another “slaughterhouse” similar to X). They argue that journalists are enabling the public’s exploitation rather than resisting it.
#“The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s”
The commenter seems to argue that journalism has been in decline since the early 2000s, likely referring to trends like the rise of sensationalist media, the collapse of traditional news revenue models, and the increasing influence of corporate and billionaire-backed interests in the media landscape.
#“Unraveling our civilizations in favor of hype conmen and their billionaire backers”
Here, the commenter criticizes how society has moved toward elevating “hype” (short-term trends, marketing gimmicks, and flashy tech solutions) and “conmen” (figures like tech CEOs or opportunistic influencers) who are supported by billionaires. They argue that this is undermining democratic values and public institutions, leading to a general unraveling of civilization.
#“Trying to swallow humanity whole”
This phrase likely reflects their belief that powerful individuals or entities (tech billionaires, corporations, or modern elites) are consolidating power and control, exploiting humanity for their own benefit, and eroding societal structures.
“All this effort, yet we don’t even resist”
The commenter laments the lack of resistance or pushback from the general public or journalists against these harmful trends. They suggest that society is passively accepting exploitation and harm instead of fighting back.
#In Summary:
The commenter believes that journalists, who should be resisting harmful trends and informing the public, are instead complicit in perpetuating systems of exploitation (like Bluesky or X) controlled by the very figures responsible for creating societal problems. This lack of resistance reflects a broader societal failure to stand up against powerful entities that are eroding civilization for their own gain.
#You said:
Why is this seen as a failure of the journalistic profession in particular ?
Can journalist really be expected to the understand the nuance and the weight of consequence of the architecture of the “public square” that they choose ?
In this case, privately owned “monarchical” centralized social media platform with one individual assuming complete control of all language and the means of mass communication of the entire intelligentsia ?
Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight and consequence of their actions ?
#ChatGPT said:
The commenter’s critique stems from the high expectations placed on the journalistic profession and the role it plays in democratic societies. Journalists are often seen as both watchdogs of power and facilitators of public discourse, which places an ethical and intellectual burden on them to understand the broader implications of their decisions and actions. However, your question raises important points about the fairness and feasibility of holding journalists to such a high standard, especially in complex situations like the architecture of the “public square.”
Why is this seen as a failure of journalism?
#The Role of Journalists as Informers and Guides:
Journalism has traditionally been tasked with more than just reporting facts. Journalists are expected to critically analyze power structures, understand systemic issues, and inform the public in a way that fosters accountability and empowers citizens. The commenter believes that by flocking to platforms like Bluesky (owned by Jack Dorsey), journalists are showing a lack of critical thinking and failing to recognize the consequences of their choices. In this view, they are unwittingly legitimizing another centralized, privately-owned system that could perpetuate or worsen the very problems they faced on X (formerly Twitter).
#The “Monarchical” Structure of Social Media:
Platforms like Bluesky or X are privately owned “public squares” where a single individual or corporation has immense control over the flow of information, content moderation, and the rules of engagement. Journalists, as professionals who rely on these platforms to communicate and amplify their work, are seen as endorsing or enabling these systems by choosing to use them. The commenter believes this complicity undermines their role as critics of power, since they are aligning with systems that concentrate power in the hands of a few.
#The Historical Role of Journalists as Resistors:
Throughout history, journalists have been instrumental in resisting oppressive systems and exposing injustices. The commenter implies that this tradition is being abandoned in favor of convenience, popularity, or the path of least resistance. Rather than critically evaluating the implications of supporting platforms like Bluesky, journalists are seen as prioritizing their short-term goals (audience reach, relevance) over their long-term responsibility to challenge harmful systems.
#Can journalists be expected to understand the nuances of these platforms?
#Lack of Specialized Knowledge:
Most journalists are not technologists, architects of digital systems, or political theorists. They may not fully grasp the nuances of how social media platforms are designed, the centralization of power in digital spaces, or the systemic risks posed by monopolistic control over public discourse. Expecting all journalists to deeply understand these issues might be unrealistic.
#Pragmatism vs. Idealism:
Journalists often face pragmatic concerns—they need to be where their audience is to remain relevant. If the “critical mass” of users moves to a platform like Bluesky, journalists might feel they have no choice but to follow, even if they have misgivings about the platform’s architecture or ownership. Their immediate need to disseminate information and sustain their careers can take precedence over abstract ethical concerns.
#The Complexity of the Problem:
The architecture of the public square is a deeply complex and interdisciplinary issue, involving technology, sociology, economics, and governance. Even experts in these fields debate the best ways to design digital public spaces. Expecting individual journalists to fully grasp these complexities and act accordingly might be holding them to an impossible standard.
#Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight of their actions?
This is a matter of perspective:
#Yes, to some extent:
Journalists Influence Public Opinion: Their actions have societal consequences. By legitimizing certain platforms, they help shape the broader media ecosystem and public discourse. As professionals who rely on and amplify these systems, they arguably have a responsibility to critically assess their choices.
Journalistic Standards Demand It: Journalism is not just a profession but a public service. A core principle of journalism is to act in the public interest, which includes recognizing and resisting structures that could harm democracy or public discourse.
Historical Precedent Exists: Some journalists and media organizations have resisted harmful systems in the past. For example, during periods of censorship or propaganda, certain journalists have gone underground, created alternative systems, or exposed the flaws of dominant institutions. This demonstrates that resistance is possible, even if it is difficult.
#No, it might be unfair:
Journalists Are Human: They are part of the same systems they critique and may not have the time, resources, or expertise to fully understand the broader implications of every decision they make. Their primary focus is often on reporting, not on systemic critique or activism.
Lack of Alternatives: In many cases, journalists have limited choices. If every major platform is centralized and controlled by private interests, it may not be realistic to expect them to find or create entirely new systems.
The Problem Is Structural, Not Individual: The issue of centralized social media platforms is a systemic one, requiring collective action and policy changes. Expecting individual journalists to solve these problems on their own is an unfair burden.
The commenter’s critique reflects a broader frustration with the state of journalism and society, but it may oversimplify the challenges journalists face. While it is fair to hold journalists accountable for the choices they make, it is also important to recognize the systemic nature of the problem. Addressing issues like the centralization of digital public spaces and the concentration of power in the hands of tech billionaires requires more than individual action—it calls for collective awareness, interdisciplinary collaboration, and structural reform.
I have an even shorter summary. The viewership are on bluesky, and not on Mastodon, so that’s where the journalists must go, end of mystery. No evil conspiracy required.
What kind of journalist just follows the herd? Haven’t they learned from Twitter that their participation in the platform, is what enpowers it. And if they can’t put that to good use, what good are they as journalists? Just slaugtherhouse hypemen? As if we needed anymore of those??
I hope that form of response doesn’t become a trend as scrolling through the wall of text will become irritating fast. But the level of snark is hilarious the first time you see it. I wonder if instead someone could set up a “lmgtfy” but for gpt, a lmgpttfy, so the snark could just be a link.
I dunno I think it demonstrates the point nicely. that the majority of people on the internet lack basic reading comprehension skills. which is fairly ironic.
“Journalists flock to yet another proprietary, commercial platform as the last becomes increasingly ‘toxic’ for reasons unknown.”
No elon… literally all that matters
Until he also buys Bluesky.
I mean, what’s the alternative? Mastodon culturally could not get its shit together enough to be a viable alternative.
Shit, they can do a lemmy or kbin instance, it would fit their format anyways. Post link from their domain, and it gets shared across the network.
Ten years later
"Journalists flock from Bluesky…
Oh shut up with that.
You act like there’s some kind of alternative which there isn’t. Mastodon, which I’m sure you were going to mention, absolutely does not count because it’s a nightmare to use and they haven’t bothered to fix any of its problems.
So there is no viable alternative.
Also because it’s so awful to use, no one does use it, and so no one’s on the platform. After all, journalists need to go where the viewers are.
There is zero point being smug about your open source platform, if no one uses your open source platform.
News outlets should be spinning up their own federated social media instances, so that THEY control their own platform, akin to a website, or email addresses.
That solves all of their issues with it.
No it doesn’t. No software is perfect.
All of these journalists have a website they can post on already. Their companies site.
How are you on the internet and yet unaware of the concept of advertising?
No one is publishing articles on social media, they are linking to articles, that are on their website, as a form of advertising.
Okay then, hope people won’t complain when things go to shit again
Just forever on march towards the inevitable due to convenience
You do realise people would’ve switched to mastodon if it weren’t so inconvenient? People don’t care about the long term projections of Bluesky. They want Muskless Twitter and they got Muskless Twitter. Simple as that
I’m just really tired of telling people about the obvious, and every time history keeps repeating
I don’t believe it’s just convenience, it’s as you said, people don’t care about the long term. In anything.
A big corporate platform (or whatever else, like, say, oil companies vs climate protesters) will always have more resources, whether it’s for development or marketing, so people will always have to be a bit willing to not have full convenience for a better world
If we don’t think about the long term, what are we even thinking of instead?
Social media rises and falls just like any other fad or fashion. It’s a never-ending churn, as people (particularly, young people) inevitably crave something novel. There’s little use in fighting the cycle, just as there’d be little use in fighting the trendy choices of a teenager.
It’s frustrating to watch people en masse continue to make choices that don’t make sense. It turns out that a lot of people are much more driven to follow the crowd than to have (let alone stand by) personal principles or rational decisions. Thankfully, we’re not obligated to be like that. There’s always some sort of counter-culture that bucks the main trends, and honestly? That’s where the most interesting people tend to be.
If you feel driven to educate people on the futility of trends, then by all means, go for it. I just know it can be draining, and not everyone is going to be receptive. On the plus side, you sound like a rational person who actually thinks about their decisions - in a world full of followers, that can be pretty powerful.
Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I can tell you have a sample size of one. Twitter.
Twitter went bad, that’s hardly indicative of a trend
Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving, in this case the very guy that caused their troubles in the first place.
Those are the very people supposed that are supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threat as well as mobilize the general population to defend against them.
But again they lead the population to the slaugtherhouse.
The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s is certainly the first thread unravelling our civilizations in favour of the hype con-mens and their billionaires backers and other monarchs trying to swallow humanity whole.
All this effort, yet we don’t even resist…
Dude, what ?
Wait what happened here? Did the GPT understand what the hooman did not? R O F L
I think I was clear enough … but ok fine
https://chatgpt.com/share/674e9f43-b38c-8005-983b-52b292558f29
The commenter is expressing a deep critique of modern journalism and society at large, suggesting that journalists are failing in their responsibilities and are complicit in societal decline. Here’s a breakdown of what the commenter likely means:
#“Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving”
The commenter is criticizing journalists for following trends or popular movements (the “herd”) without critical thought. In this case, they’re pointing out the irony of journalists leaving X (formerly Twitter) for Bluesky, which is owned by Jack Dorsey, the same individual who they believe contributed to the issues with X in the first place.
#“Those are the very people supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threats”
Journalists are traditionally seen as watchdogs of society—tasked with investigating and exposing wrongs, informing the public of dangers, and holding power to account. The commenter believes that journalists are failing in this role and instead are following the crowd or serving the interests of the powerful.
#“Bow again they lead the population to the slaughterhouse”
This is a metaphor suggesting that journalists, instead of protecting society or providing guidance, are leading people into harmful or exploitative systems (like Bluesky, which the commenter views as another “slaughterhouse” similar to X). They argue that journalists are enabling the public’s exploitation rather than resisting it.
#“The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s”
The commenter seems to argue that journalism has been in decline since the early 2000s, likely referring to trends like the rise of sensationalist media, the collapse of traditional news revenue models, and the increasing influence of corporate and billionaire-backed interests in the media landscape.
#“Unraveling our civilizations in favor of hype conmen and their billionaire backers”
Here, the commenter criticizes how society has moved toward elevating “hype” (short-term trends, marketing gimmicks, and flashy tech solutions) and “conmen” (figures like tech CEOs or opportunistic influencers) who are supported by billionaires. They argue that this is undermining democratic values and public institutions, leading to a general unraveling of civilization.
#“Trying to swallow humanity whole”
This phrase likely reflects their belief that powerful individuals or entities (tech billionaires, corporations, or modern elites) are consolidating power and control, exploiting humanity for their own benefit, and eroding societal structures.
“All this effort, yet we don’t even resist”
The commenter laments the lack of resistance or pushback from the general public or journalists against these harmful trends. They suggest that society is passively accepting exploitation and harm instead of fighting back.
#In Summary:
The commenter believes that journalists, who should be resisting harmful trends and informing the public, are instead complicit in perpetuating systems of exploitation (like Bluesky or X) controlled by the very figures responsible for creating societal problems. This lack of resistance reflects a broader societal failure to stand up against powerful entities that are eroding civilization for their own gain.
#You said: Why is this seen as a failure of the journalistic profession in particular ?
Can journalist really be expected to the understand the nuance and the weight of consequence of the architecture of the “public square” that they choose ?
In this case, privately owned “monarchical” centralized social media platform with one individual assuming complete control of all language and the means of mass communication of the entire intelligentsia ?
Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight and consequence of their actions ?
#ChatGPT said:
The commenter’s critique stems from the high expectations placed on the journalistic profession and the role it plays in democratic societies. Journalists are often seen as both watchdogs of power and facilitators of public discourse, which places an ethical and intellectual burden on them to understand the broader implications of their decisions and actions. However, your question raises important points about the fairness and feasibility of holding journalists to such a high standard, especially in complex situations like the architecture of the “public square.” Why is this seen as a failure of journalism?
#The Role of Journalists as Informers and Guides:
Journalism has traditionally been tasked with more than just reporting facts. Journalists are expected to critically analyze power structures, understand systemic issues, and inform the public in a way that fosters accountability and empowers citizens. The commenter believes that by flocking to platforms like Bluesky (owned by Jack Dorsey), journalists are showing a lack of critical thinking and failing to recognize the consequences of their choices. In this view, they are unwittingly legitimizing another centralized, privately-owned system that could perpetuate or worsen the very problems they faced on X (formerly Twitter).
#The “Monarchical” Structure of Social Media:
Platforms like Bluesky or X are privately owned “public squares” where a single individual or corporation has immense control over the flow of information, content moderation, and the rules of engagement. Journalists, as professionals who rely on these platforms to communicate and amplify their work, are seen as endorsing or enabling these systems by choosing to use them. The commenter believes this complicity undermines their role as critics of power, since they are aligning with systems that concentrate power in the hands of a few.
#The Historical Role of Journalists as Resistors:
Throughout history, journalists have been instrumental in resisting oppressive systems and exposing injustices. The commenter implies that this tradition is being abandoned in favor of convenience, popularity, or the path of least resistance. Rather than critically evaluating the implications of supporting platforms like Bluesky, journalists are seen as prioritizing their short-term goals (audience reach, relevance) over their long-term responsibility to challenge harmful systems.
#Can journalists be expected to understand the nuances of these platforms?
#Lack of Specialized Knowledge:
Most journalists are not technologists, architects of digital systems, or political theorists. They may not fully grasp the nuances of how social media platforms are designed, the centralization of power in digital spaces, or the systemic risks posed by monopolistic control over public discourse. Expecting all journalists to deeply understand these issues might be unrealistic.
#Pragmatism vs. Idealism:
Journalists often face pragmatic concerns—they need to be where their audience is to remain relevant. If the “critical mass” of users moves to a platform like Bluesky, journalists might feel they have no choice but to follow, even if they have misgivings about the platform’s architecture or ownership. Their immediate need to disseminate information and sustain their careers can take precedence over abstract ethical concerns.
#The Complexity of the Problem:
The architecture of the public square is a deeply complex and interdisciplinary issue, involving technology, sociology, economics, and governance. Even experts in these fields debate the best ways to design digital public spaces. Expecting individual journalists to fully grasp these complexities and act accordingly might be holding them to an impossible standard.
#Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight of their actions?
This is a matter of perspective:
#Yes, to some extent:
Journalists Influence Public Opinion: Their actions have societal consequences. By legitimizing certain platforms, they help shape the broader media ecosystem and public discourse. As professionals who rely on and amplify these systems, they arguably have a responsibility to critically assess their choices.
Journalistic Standards Demand It: Journalism is not just a profession but a public service. A core principle of journalism is to act in the public interest, which includes recognizing and resisting structures that could harm democracy or public discourse.
Historical Precedent Exists: Some journalists and media organizations have resisted harmful systems in the past. For example, during periods of censorship or propaganda, certain journalists have gone underground, created alternative systems, or exposed the flaws of dominant institutions. This demonstrates that resistance is possible, even if it is difficult.
#No, it might be unfair:
Journalists Are Human: They are part of the same systems they critique and may not have the time, resources, or expertise to fully understand the broader implications of every decision they make. Their primary focus is often on reporting, not on systemic critique or activism.
Lack of Alternatives: In many cases, journalists have limited choices. If every major platform is centralized and controlled by private interests, it may not be realistic to expect them to find or create entirely new systems.
The Problem Is Structural, Not Individual: The issue of centralized social media platforms is a systemic one, requiring collective action and policy changes. Expecting individual journalists to solve these problems on their own is an unfair burden.
[trunkcated by lemmy comment length limit]
Conclusion:
The commenter’s critique reflects a broader frustration with the state of journalism and society, but it may oversimplify the challenges journalists face. While it is fair to hold journalists accountable for the choices they make, it is also important to recognize the systemic nature of the problem. Addressing issues like the centralization of digital public spaces and the concentration of power in the hands of tech billionaires requires more than individual action—it calls for collective awareness, interdisciplinary collaboration, and structural reform.
I have an even shorter summary. The viewership are on bluesky, and not on Mastodon, so that’s where the journalists must go, end of mystery. No evil conspiracy required.
What kind of journalist just follows the herd? Haven’t they learned from Twitter that their participation in the platform, is what enpowers it. And if they can’t put that to good use, what good are they as journalists? Just slaugtherhouse hypemen? As if we needed anymore of those??
Missed a few points for not using: in summation lmao
I hope that form of response doesn’t become a trend as scrolling through the wall of text will become irritating fast. But the level of snark is hilarious the first time you see it. I wonder if instead someone could set up a “lmgtfy” but for gpt, a lmgpttfy, so the snark could just be a link.
I dunno I think it demonstrates the point nicely. that the majority of people on the internet lack basic reading comprehension skills. which is fairly ironic.