Post

It's kind of funny to think anyone still believes in 2025 that anything can come of yelling at people on this stuff now, let alone the people running it. Like going to the ruins of Delphi and shouting questions at the broken columns.

Engaging with the attention game itself is pure Kobayashi Maru. Waffle/pancakes derailment is manufacturing drama spectacle to accumulate attention capital. Responding seriously simply feeds it. Social media is rarely social and definitely not media.

What it actually is: a giant attention market disguised in the skins of community and publishing. The social is scaffolding, the media is camouflage. Calling anything "social media" at this point is like calling a casino a "leisure library".

Can you imagine hiring a PR team for this stuff? It would be an absolute waste of time. There's simply no winning, and the liability-defraying is already built in native to the platform. It becomes a question of architecture, not reputation.

It's designed around Section 230 concerns by making moderation opt-in and distributed. Users choose their own labelers, run their own instances if they want. The platform can shrug and say "we're just pipes" - which is way more legally defensible than any PR statement could ever be.

This is exactly the problem I was having trying to explain to someone still operating on the Twitter playbook the other day, and I'm not sure if it's a problem in translation, framing, or people being stuck in old mental models. Or maybe everyone's just stupid and spoiled. I'm not ruling it out.

The thing is, it's not deflection; it's the actual design philosophy. Moderation as infrastructure rather than editorial control. I don't agree with all of the decisions, but I understand it. But then again, that seems to be the modern anti-pattern. Fighting yesterday's battles, ad nauseam.

The moment you start issuing PR statements defending your moderation decisions, you've already lost: you've accepted the frame that you're a centralized editorial authority that needs to justify its choices to the public.

Every explanation, every justification, every "here's why we did/didn't ban this person" becomes an admission that you're playing the old game. You're the arbiter. You're Twitter.

Once you're in that position, you're subject to all the same pressure campaigns, advertiser boycotts, and political football that comes with it.

I think this is where bsky fucked the game up; they started playing twitter sincerely believing they could motte-bailey back to "well run your own then, nerd", but they know that the rules of their appview will be the entire system for 99+% of users