Posted by cdrnsf 17 hours ago
You can’t “convert the sheer scale of our audience into known, orchestrated first-party relationships” without compromising your privacy.
https://webdoodle.substack.com
I've been protesting there for 7 years now, and this was the first year the Democratic Socialists of America showed up. It was a major improvement. Next year the rest of you need to show up.
Hacker News occasionally indexed Palestinian voices but this was a breath of fresh air compared to outlets like USA Today. I'm actually constantly conflicted about the sources I consume and still seek alternatives. If they want me to view more of their content, including more authoritarian surveillance technology is not the right move.
That is not helpful, and a very good way of falling down rabbit holes just because you find a source that agrees with you on one subject. That’s how you get manipulated and radicalised.
It’s much better to have a variety of sources, even if you occasionally disagree. It keeps you grounded and reminds you that other people have other opinions.
I cannot stress this enough: do not get polarised because of a single issue. That is how rational discourse dies.
For important world news there are a lot of options. However the most important news is my local community. Who covers my local school district - nobody. (This isn't true, they do send a sports reporter to the school games - but not to the school board meetings even though they matter more)
It then becomes easy to say "I don't engage with fashists / genocide supporters / whatever" as an obvious justification for staying in ones bubble when in reality that label is so overused for people/events that say 10 years ago would have obviously not been labeled this way.
That is to say: when everyone is fascist/ genocider you have an excuse to not debate with anyone but that's not good for you.
In reality yes, Israel is a nationalist theocracy and obviously guilty of genocide in Gaza and in Lebanon. Your opinion on this or mine has no bearing on our credibility when discussing things like rocket mechanics or economics. I am not using the Armenian genocide as a purity test, either. Or the Holodomor.
And before someone mentions the paradox of tolerance: The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It's simply not interfering with people's agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn't entitle you to restrict others' self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others' agency is automatically not included in "tolerance."
It's one thing if both sides believe they are attempting to restrict each others' self-agency. It's also possible that both of you are wrong. Whose place is it to say what is right OR wrong? Is there even always a right or wrong? I don't think so.