Re: Reconsidering Bearblog
Note: This is a rather spicy topic to do my JulyReply on, but there you go. This is just my personal take and nothing more.
In reply to this post:
I'm relatively new here, but I've been surfing the discover feed for a while now. Both Scholart's and Absurd Pirate's posts about meta-blogging and repetitive content struck me as refreshingly honest and important. Important because I think any healthy community needs its critics, especially those who believe in the core tenets and express themselves in good faith.
Overall I do see a good spread of topics and opinions in the discover feed, but there are always going to be some folks who command a bigger audience, float to the top more consistently, and therefore seem to set the tone for the platform as a whole. That's what we're seeing now.
Almost every meta-blogging post from these high profile folks seems to gain traction. The topic is easy to relate to because that's we're all here. It's easy to upvote because it's almost uniformly warm, fuzzy, and uncontroversial. There's a reason self-help books sell well, despite mostly rehashing the same handful of ideas. For some of us, it feels good to be reassured about things we've absorbed intellectually, but maybe not emotionally.
For others it's like, yes, I get it, I'm special and worthwhile and there's no wrong answer and we're all in this together. It can seem sickly sweet. But if that's the message that some folks choose to focus on, more power to them. Whether or not some posts are designed to play to an algorithm, I don't know.
But I do know that when we choose to publish our thoughts online for other to read, we are choosing to invite discourse. And discourse - especially the critical variety that makes us blush a little - is a sign that people care enough a platform to have strong opinions about it.
From what I've seen, the back-and-forth between the folks carrying out this latest collective introspection has been respectful. Maybe a little spicy, maybe a little salty, but we're adults here. We can handle it.
So how do we balance the sugary sweetness of "kindness and respect" with a mindful dash of salt?
Well, we don't.
As Scholart has discovered, this is not a democracy. We're at the mercy of a benevolent dictator. And Bear's Code of Conduct is quite clear in showing the extent to which moderation is a subjective exercise. As far as I can tell, it's also a solitary one (correct me if I'm wrong). Which bullet point might Scholart have violated in this case? Hard to say.
What's clear is that our content's continued existence, or at least exposure, on this platform is subject to rules that enjoy a generous degree of wiggle room. That means ambiguity. And how could it be any other way, with such a small team in charge? To build an exhaustive rubric for every possible moderation decision would be a full-time job by itself.
This is the price we pay (besides the subscription fee, that is), to use this platform and be promoted on its feed. It's the agreement we made the moment we signed up. And unless we host our own infrastructure down to the metal, there will always be someone else making these types of decisions.
A big part of Bear's appeal is the discover feed and access to eyeballs it provides. But it really is just a privilege to be there. I guess you could consider Herman's personal interpretation of the Code of Conduct as part of the algorithm. So far I haven't heard of anyone engage in good faith being totally wiped from the platform. But you never know.
So far I've seen much more good than bad here, and I really do want to see Bear host a variety of opinions and tough (but fair) conversations. I hope Scholart and the other folks involved feel able to say exactly what they want to say, and to be able to "spar" a bit with anyone who's take a critical interest in their work. I hope Herman fosters an environment where this continues to be possible.