Over the last few weeks, I've been migrating my thoughts page^* and my blog^† to WriteFreely, hosted by Write.as.

I love thoughts so much, and I’ve praised it constantly. I’m so grateful that it’s gotten me back into writing short little blog posts, something I loved doing as a younger person but somehow lost interest in, maybe because simplicity and fun have taken a back seat in the world of blogging. At the same time, I’m now looking for features that thoughts doesn’t provide, like pagination, dedicated pages for individual posts, email signup, RSS, tags, and more. I still think thoughts is amazing, a beautifully simple blogging platform with an “old internet” feel in the very best way, and for that reason, I still wholeheartedly recommend it. I don’t recommend everyone switch to WriteFreely. It just seems like the better fit for me right now.

Medium, on the other hand, I could do without. They sometimes display giant banners above free blog posts to encourage readers to sign up for Medium, which is really annoying. I'm a paying subscriber to Medium as a reader, actually. I think that should exempt my blog from their advertising, but it doesn't. Also, their recommendation engine is horrific, and it encourages endless clickbait nonsense. I don’t want to support a company that does that, and I don’t want that perverse incentive to change my writing.

WriteFreely isn't perfect. Its Markdown parser can behave strangely, although it's not as unusual as the one used on thoughts. WriteFreely also doesn't provide search functionality, the navigational menus presented to authors are pretty confusing, and development seems very slow at this point, among other things of varying importance. But it's a much better fit for me right now. Even just having a separate page for each post is great. I'm sure that's what readers and search engines expect. By contrast, thoughts shows all posts on one page and uses URL fragments to link to particular posts (e.g., https://thoughts.johnkarahalis.com/#1762540598).

WordPress was another option, of course. I have mixed feelings about it, and part of me thinks it might have been a better choice given the issues mentioned above, most importantly the slow pace of WriteFreely development. WordPress can do everything WriteFreely can do, I think, the usability and user experience are a bit better, and it's a very active project. However, it's also big, bulky, and it has a bit of a “serious” feel to it, which I fear would take some of the joy out of writing. For whatever WriteFreely lacks, it's elegant and fun. Perhaps I'll migrate to WordPress some day when the tradeoffs become worthwhile (another migration, hooray!), but for now, I like WriteFreely, and I hope it continues to grow.

Over the next little while, you'll see posts disappear from those places and re-appear on this blog. I expect I'll be done somewhere around the middle of January, 2026, but time will tell.

#Business #Communication #PublicNotice #Technology #Usability #UserExperience

---

* When this post was published, this linked to my thoughts page. However, once the migration is complete and all of my thoughts posts have been migrated to this blog, the link will probably redirect to this blog's homepage.

† Similarly, after I migrate all posts from Medium to this blog, this link will not load my Medium page. It's not possible for me to redirect from Medium to this blog, though, so it will probably just lead to a Not found page.

In a recent edition of The Ethicist, a letter to the editor style publication from the New York Times, Kwame Anthony Appiah responds beautifully to a difficult question a reader asked about whether they should cut off an acquaintance who has committed racist acts.

Like you, I favor a bit of grace in a world full of sinners. And cutting off everyone who is morally flawed would leave you with a very small coterie of friends — who might then be tempted by the flaw of moral vanity. (In which case you’d have to get rid of them, too.)

You say you’re an equality-minded liberal. The way to live your creed isn’t by curating a spotless feed of spotless minds but by helping people do better. Hew to the norm; judge the person by what he does next; show grace where it stands a chance to help someone grow. That’s the difference between moral vanity and moral work.

This dovetails nicely with my last post, Counterproductive activism. I would never defend racist acts, obviously, but I agree that moral work demands helping others to be better, if at all possible. The rest, as he says, is moral vanity. Gosh, what a great term.

By the way, helping others to be better means approaching their wrongdoings with kindness, curiosity, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. It's a slow and painful process, but that's how change happens. This approach is needed even when others cause severe harm. In fact, it's needed especially when others cause extreme harm. Just ask Megan Phelps-Roper, who left the incomparably hateful Westboro Baptist Church only after others had the idea to challenge her with patience and curiosity. Telling someone off in the form of “advice,” when you know the message won't be heard, because it makes you feel better about yourself? That's not moral work, in my opinion. That's moral vanity.

Am I guilty of moral vanity? Yep, in ways I both do and don't notice. Even this post might convey a kind of moral vanity. If you notice times when I'm guilty of it, though, let's talk about it.

#Communication #PersonalDevelopment #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology

I want to help create a better world. That involves persuading people to see things differently—to care more about animal suffering, for example—but I also need to be sure I'm not pushing people away.

Little does more harm to a cause than the perception that its adherents are crazy. I've never heard anyone say, “Gosh, vegans are nuts… I should be one of them!” Purity tests are similarly destructive. Want to make an enemy out of a potential ally? Chastise them for not being good enough. On the contrary, celebrating small steps in the right direction achieves so much more than demanding perfection. (Guess who else isn't perfect. I'll give you a hint: you can find them in your mirror. Mine, too.)

Protesting outside KFC and throwing red paint on fur coats probably increases animal suffering, on balance, by deepening the resistance and habits of those who oppose ethical veganism. Similarly, having a meltdown when someone disagrees with one's economic vision probably hinders the economic justice they're after.

For this reason, I'm so frustrated and disappointed that social media fosters extremism and encourages users to preach to the choir. It's worse than a massive opportunity cost. It actually leads us to harm those we are trying to help.

#Belief #Communication #PersonalDevelopment #Philosophy #Politics #Technology

What if we made all advertising illegal?

[…]

The financial incentives to create addictive digital content would instantly disappear, and so would the mechanisms that allow both commercial and political actors to create personalized, reality-distorting bubbles.

Clickbait, listicles, and affiliate marketing schemes would become worthless overnight. Algorithm-driven platforms like Instagram and TikTok that harvest and monetize attention, destroying youth, would lose their economic foundation.

[…]

Removing these advanced manipulation tools would force everyone—politicians included—to snap back into reality. By outlawing advertising, the machinery of mass delusion would lose its most addictive and toxic fuel.

—Kōdō Simone in What If We Made Advertising Illegal?

#SocialMedia #Technology #Communication #Politics #Philosophy

What's wrong with hyperpartisan media? (Pick your favorite example of a one-sided TV channel, YouTube channel, website, radio show, podcast, or magazine.) If the problem is that these outlets promote overly simplistic, slanted perspectives, never reporting the other side of the story, then why are we not equally worried about social media filter bubbles, given that they are designed to do the same thing?

Facebook and other social media platforms show us what we want to see. They reinforce our existing worldviews. One doesn’t need to think hard to understand why; anything else would be bad for business. Nobody logs on to be told they’re wrong. Nobody enjoys having their reality challenged.

I’m concerned about old-style hyperpartisan media, but this new, “social” version is much worse. Many of us walk around with personalized, digital propagandists close by. They push our buttons and beg for our limited attention—buzz, buzz! Sometimes, we spend more time with them than with real human beings, with their nuanced and thoughtful perspectives.

Should we be surprised the world is so divided?

#Belief #Business #Communication #Favorites #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology

In the past, I wrote that we may need a digital equivalent to the awkward pause. At the time, I couldn't find the blog post where I first encountered that idea, but now, almost exactly one year later, I've found it. It really stood the test of time. I couldn't agree more!

Imagine you're at a dinner party, and you're getting into a heated argument. As you start yelling, the other people quickly hush their voices and start glaring at you. None of the onlookers have to take further action—it's clear from their facial expressions that you're being a jerk.

In digital conversations, giving feedback requires more conscious effort. Silence is the default. Participants only get feedback from people who join the fray. They receive no signal about how the silent onlookers perceive their dialogue. In fact, they don't receive much signal that onlookers observed the conversation at all.

As a result, the feedback you do receive in digital conversations is more polarized, because the only people who will engage are those who are willing to take that extra step and bear that cost of wading into a messy conversation.

—Devon Zuegel in The silence is deafening

#Belief #Communication #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology #Wellbeing

“Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.”

—Dutch proberb

#Belief #Communication #PersonalDevelopment #Philosophy #Quotes

Politics has become a means of self-realization rather than a tool for solving practical problems. Views on enlightenment differ, of course, causing intense conflict and distrust. To restore our trust in each other and the political process, now may be a good time to focus on common-sense legislation with broad appeal. Let's eliminate daylight saving time, outlaw deceptive resort fees, and begin to regulate social media. Let's stop tech support scammers, strengthen online privacy, and standardize on one charging connector for electric cars. Let's make browser vendors work together to prevent identity theft. These things may seem inconsequential, but getting along couldn't be more important. Along the way, we might discover that politics doesn't always have to be so acrimonious.

#Belief #Business #Communication #Favorites #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #SoftwareDevelopment #Technology #UserExperience #Wellbeing

An occasional reminder may be prudent: I'm not the John Karahalis who writes letters to the editor of the New York Daily News. I'm not taking a position on those opinions. I just don't find it productive to discuss religion or politics in polite company.

For the most part, I regret discussing religion and politics on social media. Doing so accomplished little good. Moreover, the ubiquity of such content is one of the many reasons I find social media intolerable. Of course, religion and politics take many forms. The line between them is becoming less distinct, and often, they disguise themselves as simple reality.

#Belief #Communication #Politics #PublicNotice

“If our goal is to live in a shared reality with our neighbors, what if our current approach isn't bringing us any closer to that?”

—Peter McIndoe in a TED talk about his satirical conspiracy theory, Birds Aren't Real

#Belief #Communication #Philosophy #Politics #SocialMedia #Technology #Wellbeing