What Substack and other newsletters have brought back is the long blog essay. That's a great form, and I'm thrilled to see it revived.
But that was always a small fraction of blogging, and it wasn't what built the ecosystem.
So much of blogging was "Link + quick comment."
The sites that built the blogosphere as a conversational ecosystem — Instapundit, Atrios, Daily Dish — specialized in that. But we all did a lot of it. And it created maps and conversations for readers to follow.
But that moved to Twitter. I think it's worse here — less generous, less weird, more algorithmic — but that's a side point.
The Substacks, etc, have paywalls, and aren't built for short, freestanding posts. So they can't replicate that.
Seeing blog essays develop a business model is really cool.
But blogging wasn't about individual blogs. It was about the connections and interactions and pathways between them, which mainly came through links and short comments/responses.
That got siphoned off to Twitter (and others), and it's what killed the blogosphere.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Another example: It looks like CDC is going to revisit ending quarantine after 5 days without a test. But there isn't an available supply of rapid tests in many areas.
So we're going to have possibly infectious people driving from drugstore to drugstore, looking?
I enjoyed this @VitalikButerin post on the Bulldozer vs. Vetocracy axis, but I think the problem is vetocracies are, by nature, complex and opaque, and people often don't even know the vetocracies shaping their lives. vitalik.eth.limo/general/2021/1…
Which is to say: This might be a good way of thinking about the problems of different societies, i.e., China's has bulldozer problems, America has vetocracy problems.
But I'm skeptical it's a good way of thinking about individual or even collective preferences.
Also: People's preference for veto points tend to change a lot with who's in power. I don't find that irrational or insincere, as some do, but it makes it harder to pinpoint an abstract preference in the area.
I'm seeing this too, and I...don't think it's great.
There are more options here than, as @EricTopol puts it, inevitability vs. avoidance. This is what I've been trying to tease out pushing for a clearer description of goals.
There are other camps one can fall into, rather than seeing this as a binary between "let 'er rip" and "lock back down" (which seems to me to be what's obviously demanded by many arguments here, but since it won't happen, few are directly advocating it)
Here's mine: People are going to have very different risk tolerances, different needs, and little patience for lockdowns. No strategy that doesn't accept that can work.
So I want policymakers to make sure people have a full supply of risk management tools.
The implied population-level infection numbers here are just wild. Avoiding this thing will be very, very hard, in a way I’m not sure our public conversation has caught up to.
Strong case for being very, very cautious if you have immunocompromised people in your life.
I’d really like to hear more public health officials or elected officials clearly state their goal at this point. Is it spacing out hospitalizations? Minimizing cases? Minimizing severity of cases through vaccination?
And note that the goal for public health might be different than the goal for any individual or family.
But what is the public health goal now? Because I think a lot of people still think it’s to minimize cases, and I’m not sure it is, or if it is, if that’s achievable.
I’m all for rapid tests but I am kind of puzzled as to how we’ve gotten maximally focused on their power at the same time we’re seeing them clearly swamped in Europe.