Unless you want to follow Adobe, who were just driven out by a mob of angry people

There are a lot of people I'd love to see content from on all of the platforms who aren't where I want them to be, for a variety of reasons. That's not really a great argument.

The argument is that this is now part of that list of reasons. Why acknowledge a problem but disregard one of the causes?

Our deepest condolences. Losing a marketing bullhorn is always difficult.

Ok I guess I'll simplify the point for you: You can't follow the "people you want to see" if the platform is so hostile that the people you want to see are driven from it.

My comment wasn't just about Adobe

Being intolerant of soulless rent-seeking corporations doesn’t turn you into a cool person. It just shows you are intolerant.

There must be a name for the phenomenon when a minority escapes persecution and hate, and upon reaching their promised land become intolerant and hateful of any outside group.

Nah, it makes gp cool as fuck actually.

It's more the content creators who bear the brunt of toxic rage. Who you follow doesn't solve that problem

> the content creators

This is IMO the problem. I don't use these sites to follow "content creators". For the most part I'm following normal people who happen to say things I find interesting.

I don't think they were saying it's a problem for people following content creators. It's more a problem for content creators, because they usually want the greatest reach possible, so they want to be on platforms that people use, which requires them to put up with the emotional swingings of the platforms' userbases.

If you want to say you don't care about having content creators on your platform, that's at least a coherent take. But you still have to think about the business models of the platforms that keep them around-- short of collecting payments from every ordinary user, there needs to be buy-in from someone wanting reach, whether that's corporate accounts, individual content creators, or someone else. And do you actually know all of those "normal people who happen to say things you find interesting" in real life, or did you find some of them online, i.e. they're basically influencers/content creators with you as an audience member?

That is indeed what I'm saying. I treat social media more like I treated Usenet back in the day. To me that's a superior model than the influencer model.

And what about the people who sometimes post interesting things and sometimes post distilled insanity? They're incentivized to do so.

Then you decide if the positives outweigh the negatives and unfollow them or not.

This particular situation is why the only thing I miss from Twitter at this point is the ability to mute an account's reposts rather than the full account.

Do you want to follow them or not? Up to you. No one is incentivized to do anything other than post what they want and follow who they want.