A lot of replies here (obviously from people not already aware of The Discourse on this point) were genuinely confused variants on "But why, they're right, that's a valid concern." Let me leave a short thread for future readers explaining why that stuff is always unwelcome on here. (1/n)
It's totally understandable if you're dooming about any facet of the American experiment right now. So your feelings are "valid" in the sense that they represent real anxiety, and I get that. But to vent that anxiety in other people's spaces is wrong for three reasons.
First, it's factually wrong. There will be elections in 2026 and 2028 under Trump, just like there were elections last year under Trump and during his first term. This despite one of the two major parties now harboring a lot of anti-democratic elements and ideas.
I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone on this point and won't try, the future is the future. But if the left side of the political spectrum is still the domain of scholarship and expertise, take note that you don't find scholars and experts you worrying about canceled US elections.
Second, and probably most importantly, it's tactically wrong. "No point discussing political opposition to fascism, there won't be elections anyway" cedes victory to your enemies. It's defeatism and nihilism.
Finally, it's wrong AS A MATTER OF ETIQUETTE. Entering a total stranger's discussion and leading with your private anxiety is as off-putting in social media replies as it would be in real life. If you wouldn't interrupt a stranger at a party to announce that America is doomed, don't do it here.
If you are anxious and sad about the state of the world, that's fine, and there are plenty of strategies for dealing with that. But I think you already know that drive-by online dooming isn't a strategy. It's selfish and adolescent. It's a contagion that only spreads the worst of you, not the best.
Take a second and think before posting the easy Eeyore reply. You might have something substantive to say instead. Or, even better, you can say nothing at all.
https://bsky.app/profile/kenjennings.bsky.social/post/3mbuedepurs2x
Yea, I've never used Twitter, but doesn't the same general etiquette apply as forum posting?
If I post something on a public forum that says something about US voting, how is that not inviting other people to continue the conversation? If you don't want people to respond, make a blog.
It's somewhere in between, though, right? On a traditional forum, you can create a thread, where being OP on that thread doesn't give any privileged moderation powers within that thread.
On a traditional blog (or, like a newspaper's website where they allow commenters on the articles), it's well understood that the comments attached to the blog post or article are subject to moderation, and that the person who posted that has strong moderation powers.
With social media sites, the platforms have all given the users the power to post freely, and then moderate their own reply threads from there. It's obvious on platforms like Facebook or Instagram, where someone posting a comment on someone else's post is understood and expected to be subject to the moderation decisions of the original poster (including the power to just disable comments entirely). But on microblogging sites, replies often are considered on more equal footing, and are posts of their own, instead of being clearly subordinate to an original post/comment relationship.
In the end, I think the power to mute or disable replies (even on an ad hoc basis, even after the fact) gives the impression that replies are a semi-private space subject to the original poster's own moderation decisions.
None of that would apply to someone commenting on the substance of the post on their own chosen space (writing a new post with the screenshot), but going off platform doesn't actually ping the original poster within that platform. In a sense, the power to ping that user's inbox also carries some level of responsible etiquette.
I think it's important to note that he's saying all that in response to people asking why he'd block or mute someone jumping on his post with something like that.
You can reply to public posts all you want, just don't be surprised if saying dickish things gets you blocked by the poster. Ken is just offering his 3 reasons he's blocking them.
With something like a completely valid point that doesn't, from all the text I see here, shut down the conversation at all? A comment that points out a real possibility that we would all do well to be prepared for?