I’m going to be honest, this isn’t something I really care too much about. Failure to restrict something isn’t the same thing as endorsing that same thing. Although the article does have two separate messages between the one about a transphobic journalist and the second part about a faux decentralized service. As far as I’m concerned, Mastodon is the best ideologically and Blue sky comes in second place followed by threads and Twitter in a very distant third place. I’m not going to be on any of those platforms except for Mastodon and maybe Blue sky for some things
I don’t understand the “waffles” comment though, even after reading the context.
I think it’s a riff on an old meme I don’t quite remember. But the idea is like,
- people are doing an innocuous thing
- something declares that they thus must hate dubiously related thing
Like, someone playing checkers. Someone says “oh you’re playing checkers because you hate chess!?”. You can kind of see how they made that leap through several errors (view chess and checkers as mutually exclusive opposites)
So the person in the quote thinks banning whoever is a non sequitur, I guess.
I can see the original quote being either about a logical fallacy as you’re explaining or about entering spaces to confront people about unrelated things. That doesn’t bring me any closer to understanding the “checkers” / “waffles” reply though. Is she saying “stay on the topic”? I really don’t know.
Non sequiturs is how humans operate.
No technology will fix that.
Jay is the CEO of BlueSky.
