Is #mastodon becoming an echo chamber?

@worik @scottjenson My comfort is my priority and that comes from my instance and my relationship with its admin. Policing other people's interactions on other instances is hardly an efficient use of my time, and trying to clamp down on people's freedom to hurl invectives at each other is what led other social media platforms to become echo chambers.

Scott's example of "being asked to do alt text or CWs" as reply guy harassment is rather telling. The comfort of a diverse community is not where his concern is; rather, his concern is the comfort of the privileged coming to a community that is already extremely diverse. I focus on trying to have calm, productive dialogue with people and de-escalating shouting matches. If someone comes into my notifs who simply isn't worth my time, I just don't respond.

Scott blocked me for this thread, but ironically enough, I fully support him in doing so if he didn't want to engage me any further. It's the practical solution here.

@worik @scottjenson A huge part of why many people bounce off Mastodon is that they join your instance, mastodon.social, which is extremely large and which they have no connection to. This is also why my instance admin has your instance silenced; it's impossible to effectively moderate, so the surface area between them is minimized.

They would be much better served by joining a small, quiet instance where they could know the admins personally. This is what a decentralized, federated network is built on, and it's what I'd recommend to anyone trying to join it. In this kind of space you can build an actual community.

@worik Rather than argue with you, I'm simply going to point out that you are not being welcoming enough to my opinions, and that this is a broader community problem everyone needs to address.

See? Anybody can pull that out.

@unlofl

> See? Anybody can pull that out.

Out of where?-)

I am curious how you came to your opinion. Your opinion is open to being challenged, and AFAICT you opinion about how @scottjenson was glossing over ethica4issues with AI.

This I think is the point, and what Scott and I are pushing back against (me anyway, Scott speaks for himself). In 400 characters a lot of nuance is omitted and it is (IMO) unhelpful to draw conclusions about peoples motivations if not clearly stated

@scottjenson @dalias @pmdj Dude this is the most fallatious generalization that.... isn't even true?
I've seen cis/trans, white/black, everyone from any group, on here, against AI. Half the instances are ran by people so queer it'd explode a conservative

@scottjenson This is one of the most unintentionally (I think) hilarious lists I’ve ever read. I hope you’re well and taking a break from opining in public.

@scottjenson @Gargron I personally won't be following them, and most will find themselves muted or blocked by me. But they are welcome to try to form a community here. The problem is, the Fediverse is made up of people trying to escape corporate control in at least one form, namely social media. We are often looking for other ways to separate ourselves from big tech as well.

This worldview isn't exactly compatible with AI/LLM use.

AI users simply aren't likely to fit in here. In my opinion, they are welcome to try. But I strongly suspect they will find themselves in their own echo chamber, with only other fans of AI listening. The end result will be nothing of value, much like AI itself.

@scottjenson "Ai journalists" are not a "marginalized group", and trying to use that term to describe people who take chatbots too seriously is, IMO, fucking offensive to members of actual marginalised groups.

I don't know if you're conscious of how you're using a tired right-wing tactic often used to invade and divide leftist spaces; co-opting their language, mis-applying it to their own gain, and then declaring any pushback is actually not leftist, in the hope of leading to in-fighting among people with different levels of familiarity about the nuances of that language.

Here, you're taking "inclusivity" (which is about making sure people who are traditionally left out for factors like race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, appearance, age...), mis-applying it to tech bro's opinions LLMs (opinions aren't people, my dude), and declaring that if we aren't willing to listen to pro-LLM people waffle on, they "aren't inclusive". And that's bullshit.

Mate, let me be clear; when I say I do not want to hear your excuses for how chatbots are definitely very good, that OK they're actually bad but they're going to be good very soon, honest, that every kid who killed themselves because ChatGPT agreed with them that's it's for the best is just misuse on their part and doesn't mean there's a problem, that it was OK to suck up an entire generation's collective conversations and artworks and songs and videos because they put them up somewhere publically before LLM training was even a thing, that all the energy and water and time and effort and lives spent on this is definitely going to be worth it any day now... I do that in a completely inclusive way. *Everyone* earnestly foisting this tech despite being in a position to know all the harm it's causing can get fucked, every one of them.

I have space for people who are (somehow) using it in 2026 without realising the issues, or who are at workplaces that are forcing it on them and aren't in a position to push back. But so called "AI Journalists"? Get in the bin.

@worik @unlofl @scottjenson shame that the 500 character limit is considered a core Mastodon feature, try using a different instance

@scottjenson@social.coop

I want my normie friends and family to join the fediverse, because their socmed of choice is facebook and I haven't touched that in over two years.