Anon Has No Name

Perhaps. Or perhaps we have not developed the right platform yet.

We could be like two chuckleheads from the 1800’s chatting about how there is no way we could ever have video communications with any person around the world at any time from a device in our pocket.

What do you think this could look like in practice? Could we create a platform that helps people verify and agree on the facts presented in their arguments? Is it even possible to reach consensus on certain truths in a way that feels fair and universally acceptable?

Fair enough. My interest is collaborating with others to identify a process or platform that channels unproductive online disagreements into constructive truth-seeking discussions. There’s great potential to rethink how we engage in digital dialogue for more meaningful and unifying outcomes.

From my perspective, stepping back into social media after a decade has already opened my world immensely. I’m sure you see gaps in my current sample size. I welcome you to help fill those gaps, whether through your own input or by recommending someone that can provide the missing perspective.

In contrast, science prioritizes inclusion with larger sample sizes to gain broader, more reliable insights. We could argue that different scenarios require different approaches. It depends on the goals and context of the situation.

Consider someone like Elon Musk. At companies like X and Tesla, his ultimate goal isn't necessarily inclusion. He often fires those he deems unnecessary, retaining only the most qualified individuals to achieve progress.

Ultimately I believe solving this issue is like eating an elephant—or a million elephants. It can only happen one bite at a time. The likely reality is that no single person, myself included, will solve it. Still, every small step matters. Progress grows from connection and effort.

Next I’d ask who am I? What is my reach? I’m a nobody. If I could instantly gather perfect feedback on every question, I’d do it without hesitation. But who’s to say success here wouldn’t expand my reach over time? You and I aren’t fully like-minded—why not start the conversation here and now?

I believe your point is important, and if we explored it fully, I’d likely agree with you in many ways. My initial thoughts are: Do you know anyone entirely unbiased? If so, how does one achieve that? Does progress always require a perfect sample of every bias?

The Bluesky just got a little blue-r

Wonder if there is a way to hold each other accountable to the truth without it feeling like toxic team sports or overly Big Brother-ish 🤔

Yea, how do we do that better?

What is the next evolution in online discourse? There must be a better way

A lot of discussion around different options for echo chambers. Who is ready to talk about the evolution of online discourse? Time to innovate

Hello, Bluesky! After avoiding social media for over a decade, I’m here to explore a big question: how can we have healthy disagreement in modern discourse? Likely naively, I believe, with like-minded individuals, we might discover a new process or platform for resolving disagreement.