People can spend their time wherever they want so I genuinely won't throw shade at Gruber's decision to go back to posting on X. But the idea that X is "friendly and inclusive" is pretty laughable when you consider that since the dawn of Twitter it's been a thunderdome that people call the hellsite.
As much as I appreciate places like Bluesky and Mastodon, all public social networks have the same problem — they're town squares, not communities. What people liked about Twitter was finding their community of developers or sports or pop culture or whatever inside of Twitter, while mostly trying to ignore the rest.
@mergesort yeah it’s the justification that is disappointing, right up there with Marco’s Bob and Van piece.
“My support of the bad man only hurts other people” is some take.
@steveriggins I hadn't read the Bob and Van post but I agree with what Marco is trying to say. My moral framework still places caring about all people and helping others above all — even those who hold values (political or otherwise) that are incongruent with my values. Finding ways to coexist and see the humanity in others is more important than shunning anyone who doesn't hold my beliefs — the alternative leads to a sad world. But your choice of social network is not the same class of problem.
@mergesort I have people in my life that I disagree with. I don’t need to shun them and I also don’t need to say nothing. That is what I have an issue with. A lot of people don’t have the privilege like I do to just ignore things because they don’t impact me directly.
Looking the other way ain’t the answer for me, and that is what his piece felt like it was saying.
@steveriggins I’m pretty sure you and I actually agree, but the question is more about how and on what details.
@mergesort agreed!