The problem is your comment is missing really important information. You said you returned in 2017, but only mentioned that it was good in 2005. This leaves a 12 year period where it could have declined. You didn't say it was good in 2005 and you already started to see the decline before you left.
You have no more evidence that it declined before the acquisition than after it. It reads as some weird defense of Bezos and then you doubled down by saying management wasn't happy with employee backlash.
Anyways, I agree that the decline did start before the acquisition, like it started for all newspapers. The Internet killed the newspaper. Bezos was supposed to save it.
> It's also the case that The Washington Post brought itself down. I grew up reading WaPo and when I moved back to DC as an adult c. 2017 I got a subscription.
This doesn't really add up given Bezos purchased it in October 2013.
> It also probably did not inspire very much good will from management/ownership when the company's employees started regularly leaking proceedings at company meetings and reporters started making a practice of using social media to criticize management during work hours.
Your thinking is completely backwards. This isn't the first case of a wealthy individual buying journalism in order to destroy it. Why do you think employee backlash happened in the first place?
If you mean to say that officials in Trump's administration are hypocritical, then say that. But many are accusing thousands of rank-and-file gun rights supporters of hypocrisy on a thin to nonexistent evidence base.
Here's how one gun rights group responded to some of the statements you quoted:
You didn't say "rank-and-file gun rights supporters", you said "right-wingers". These are all MAGA, which today, whether you like it or not, is the majority of "right-wingers". MAGA lives on a lack of principles, and that's why it's popular. Things are getting real now, huh?
This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy. There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely. There’s nothing stopping you from helping build the community you desire. You just want the work done for you. Stop complaining about it and make it happen.
The tools are there to make it what you want, it is light years ahead of the other platform. Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination.
> This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy
Which of the many backed and well thought out points did you find lazy?
> There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely
Not sure you read the article, but his point is that there's nothing to curate. It's full of a certain type of person, and not much else. I can attest to this too.
> Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination
I have no nostalgia for Twitter, but I do remember what it used to be like (way back when you used to SMS in your tweets!). It was a fun place with random, sometimes interesting, sometimes thoughtful, most times funny and inane posts. That's not nostalgia, that's how it was.
It takes time to build a community. Twitter was not what it was over night, it took time. Before that, it was just "a certain type of person." Mostly pointless crap. You're looking for a specific community but not willing to put in the work to help build it. The point is the tools are there to help build the community but everyone just expects it to happen for them.
That's why it's "lazy". You just want the benefits of the community but not actually build it. At the time Twitter became popular, there was novelty to it to keep it going through the early days. Bluesky doesn't have that advantage, the novelty of this type of platform is gone, it's just expected to be a replacement right away.
And I say this because I've seen other people with actual pull, like Mark Cuban, have similar sentiments. You can drown out all the noise you don't like and help move your followers onto it. It simply needs a larger community. More people means the current majority becomes a minority.
> I haven't seen a convincing argument about why it would have been better if he remained in power.
You're way off base here. No one is arguing that he should be in power. It's the way it was done. You're also ignoring a very important question: now what?
Sorry, but the last year has not inspired confidence that this administration knows what it's doing.
Any nuclear-empowered nation is obviously off limits, but any nation without nuclear and with active hostilities towards the US is certainly thinking twice.
> Two examples of military intervention / occupation working out in the long run are Germany and Japan in WW2. Maybe even South Korea (stabilization of a dictatorship and economic development lead to a democratic revolution later). One can be hopeful that this starts a better chapter for the Venezuelians as well.
Ignoring the fact that we have been using these examples for decades now as reasoning for going to war, these were all done after years of war. What makes you so convinced that this is "over" and the Venezuelean people can live happily ever after? History says it's far from over.
I will even go as far as stating that it is one of the only few places left on the Internet where you can see differing opinions interleave in a not-completely destructive manner. Really no idea what OP is talking about because it has not been at all my experience.
The NFL is trying to expand their viewership. It doesn’t matter if NFL fans want to see Bad Bunny, they are already watching.