So, when you remove what I assume is an announcement bot and lizard people from the equation, the answer is George Takei? Yeah, that sounds about right.
So, when you remove what I assume is an announcement bot and lizard people from the equation, the answer is George Takei? Yeah, that sounds about right.
I don't like threads at all, but referring to Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri as "lizard people" is pretty antisemitic, especially since they are both Jewish people.
I'm guessing that you were unfamiliar with this antisemitic dogwhistle, but I also understand that's the point of a dogwhistle - It doesn't sound racist unless you already know about it.
Never heard this take before, lizard people has always been the upper class of non-human psychopath rulers and billionaires. I won't stop using the term in that sense, certainly using tiktok and business insider as sources adds credibility to all this.
Then of course, if you ACTUALLY believe they are lizard people, you may have bigger problems.
Well @zuck (and @mosseri) are from Threads and, like @Mastodon, it makes sense a lot of people would first choose to follow the top leaders. I imagine the majority of those are actually legitimate users, though the Threads bubble also very quickly popped, so who knows how many are still active
I will never understand why people follow "celebrities" on social media. Isn't life already forcefully inundated with these overly self-important assholes as is? This is the same to me as people who go on YouTube to watch commercials; I just cannot fathom the appeal
Depends on the celebrity. Neil Gaiman is actually pretty chill online. Takei too, but the amount of articles he posts started to annoy me, so I dumped him. I don't really know what people see in Zuck, though.
I mean, how else do you propose to organize the sea of information that the internet is constantly swamped in? Individual personalities work as a pretty consistently navigable waypoint and information gatekeeper, a pretty decent filtration mechanism. Most other methods are somewhat vulnerable to corruption over time, or are less consistent, or demand higher maintenance for different tradeoffs.
On Twitter, I can see it. I always thought Twitter was a great place to do things like "Performing LIVE at the astro dome 2/31/2024! Tickets on sale now!" I could see following your favorite bands or comedians or whatever.
What does this even mean, I can't "follow" users on Jerboa. Is this some shit zuck added to his specific Threads then wanks about how he has all the followers?
Lemmy doesn’t work like that, lemmy is about communities and you can join communities here. But Mastodon, PixelFed and PeerTube don’t work like that, they are about people posting stuff and therefore you follow people.
One of the most tragic scenes in Dune is when Paul Atreides realizes that Stilgar is no longer his friend but another one of his fanatical followers. Follower counts on social media really means nothing.
But maybe there is someone out there who refuses to participate in a broken system of a fantasy world, and instead decided to leave for a part of the Fediverse where their follower count is, and will forever remain, zero.
Like what Stereotypical Barbie did at the end of the movie.
I live under a rock, so whats a threads and who is Mark Zuckerburg?
I gest, I really dont care that Mark is on the fediverse. Till my Lemmy instance is full of threads crap and I have to route via the Zuckerburg hive mind.