Lately, I've noticed that many online discussions don't really feel like discussions anymore. Instead of exchanging perspectives, we often default ...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
You have made some great observation on the state of online activity in general and it also reflects on the real world too.
When 2026 came around, I took heavy reflection and came to a conclusion that I have not been socializing more than I should. It's mostly because of my overthinking and having inferiority complex that I am not good enough to be around the people that knows more than me. I often resort of staying silent because I don't want to take so much energy in hopes others will understand my perspective. I am also scared to show off my work because of having that thought of people hating me.
I came to Dev.to ultimately because it is a good step for me to engage in the community by replying to posts, comments, and posting my developments without being egotistic (which I heavily try to avoid). It has been a great experience so far, especially where everyone is thoughtful and kind. I know that eventually I will reach a point where someone will come as the opposite of that here (which is not yet), but I understand that everyone is not the same, and that's okay! I haven't seen anyone on Dev.to, so far, that came off as defensive and mean yet (Maybe you have? We both have different experiences).
Although Dev.to has been great in keeping the environment inclusive and acknowledgment everyone's viewpoints, I hope it would spread throughout everyone on the internet and in real life. Good take and hope you had a great experience so far here!
Hey! I read your articles, they're interesting. If somebody doesn't like one, he can skim… and even if there are some who know mre than you, there are plenty who know less - and will thank you for your posts.
Really appreciate the kind words, Pascal - thank you! And honestly, that’s exactly why communities like DEV exist: we’re all at different stages of our learning journey.
Thanks Pascal! As Richard mentions, everyone has a different skill set and a different trail to follow. I appreciate the kind words from you! Hope you are having a great week as well :D
I have more than 25 years of experience in the field and my Imposter Syndrome becomes bigger year by year xD
As far as you learn more things, the more things you know that you don't know and the more awareness of there are a lot of things you don't know that you don't know! xD
nealford.com/memeagora/2015/09/08/...
The thing is to be proud of the thing that you know and at the same time open-minded to hear opinions and get learnings from others.
The last point you made, especially, Fernando is the one I'm truly going to keep with me - well said!
Thanks Fernando! It is great to read this in the morning right now! You are right about "the more things you know that you don't know and the more awareness of there are a lot of things you don't know that you don't know". Thanks again!
Appreciate the thoughtful reply, Francis, and thanks for sharing your perspective.
Like you, I’ve had a positive experience on DEV overall. There was one slightly jarring interaction while commenting on another post, but it looks like the response was flagged and marked as “low quality” fairly quickly, which was reassuring. Before that happened, I made sure to disengage politely, so no harm done in the end - and it felt like a good example of the DEV team being attentive and proactive.
I joined this community for much the same reasons as you, and I’m really glad I did.
Glad you have a good experience so far Richard! It seems that you are a Trusted Member! That's good to hear. I also hope to become one as well. Either way, I will continue to interact to the community when I can and hope to learn from others and hopes that people will learn from me!
Looking forward to your posts in the future!
Yea, the Trusted Member status was a nice "win" that week for sure and I was honoured to be considered worthy of it.
It is obvious from your own engagement here that you have the community at the heart of all that you do, Francis. Look forward to seeing your own journey unfold!
Yours as well. Was thinking of forming an avengers organization yesterday and was wondering if you would like to be part of it. We could use that org as of everyone coming together and create one big project and get users for it. Just a floating idea I have :)
Sounds really rather interesting, Francis. What do you have in mind, exactly?
Sorry for late response. My semester began, so my activity here is a bit limited but not a lot.
Anyway, I was thinking of create an org where we assemble everyone who is into web dev and post in that org about tips/tricks of web development and take on challenges for other people suggestions on what to build on the web. What do you think?
Yea, I think the idea has a lot of merit to it, Francis. Keep me in the loop!
Your article comes at a perfect time for me. This week I experienced an ad hominem attack from a developer who simply disagreed with my point of view. I genuinely enjoy debate and I welcome contradiction — it’s often how we refine ideas — but personal attacks add nothing of value. I’m not a fan of dogmatic positions either.
A comedian once said, “You can discuss anything, but not with everyone.” With someone who is closed-minded, you can’t. With extremists — and they don’t only exist in religious contexts — you can’t either. It’s unfortunate, but we’re not going to change the world overnight. Maybe not today… but that doesn’t mean the conversation isn’t still worth having.
Yes I went too far, and I was to stubborn at the time to admit it. I was stupid.
No worries at all, David. It takes a lot of professional maturity to admit that, and I truly respect the honesty. It was a heated debate, but those are exactly the conversations we need to keep our engineering choices grounded in reality. See you on the next thread!
Brains just work differently for everyone, which is a fact I've come to accept. I don't think there's anyway to change it (except through eugenics maybe, which is a terrible idea).
Now the only thing I look for in any conversation, is the other person honestly evaluating whatever opinion I present. If not, not interested in continuing the conversation.
I really like your closing paragraph - it's a smart way of handling ongoing conversations online. Like I've mentioned before, sometimes just taking "five" minutes is all you need to see things from another perspective.
Thank you for sharing that, Pascal - I really resonate with your experience. It’s so frustrating when a discussion shifts from ideas to personal attacks, especially when you genuinely enjoy debate and learning from different perspectives.
I love the quote you shared: "You can discuss anything, but not with everyone." It’s a good reminder that some conversations aren’t going to go anywhere, and that’s okay. What matters is staying open and engaging where we can have productive dialogue.
The internet turned disagreement into a sport.
We don’t debate to understand anymore – we debate to win, screenshot, and move on.
The irony? Real progress comes from curiosity, not from being the fastest contrarian in the thread.
Maybe the bravest take today isn’t “you’re wrong” – it’s “I see it differently, tell me more.”
Well said, Alfatech. Your comment reminded me how far some people will go just to “win” an argument online. War Thunder has repeatedly been caught in the crossfire, with players posting classified or restricted military information on the forums to prove a point.
Well-articulated, I agree 100 percent ...
"Communities where curiosity is valued over winning, and where disagreement doesn't immediately escalate into hostility, are becoming increasingly rare"
I think that dev.to is an example of one of those increasingly rare communities where respectful discussion is the norm rather than the exception - that's why it's one of my favorite communities!
Completely and utterly agree with you, leob. DEV is the rare jewel in the internet crown these days!
Indeed - to the point where I hardly visit any other "dev" sites anymore nowadays (apart from general discussion fora like reddit etc) - dev.to just aces it!
DEV is certainly a rare space these days, I agree. With the few others sites I do visit these days - mostly gaming-related - I stay as far away from the comments section as possible!
Yeah... I also noticed that Dev.to deteriorated quite heavily into self-gratifying LinkedIn slop :(
I mean there's literally a "The Collapsing Quality of Dev.to" post from 2021 pointing out this very current issue.
But when there are bad examples, there are good examples too.
There's still hope that one day Dev.to will stop being the laughing stock, just like our profession "Software Engineer".
Lot of work ahead! Good luck for us! :)
That's an opinion from a post from 2021 (which is an eternity in our "field") - but, I have the feeling that the quality has been improving lately ...
"There's still hope that one day Dev.to will stop being the laughing stock" - what? What do you mean? Dev.to is (for me) the developer's website/community I respect the most - name me another one which would be "better"?
One which isn't pretentious and making bold claims, and falsly offers Ultimate Truth Bombs in 2 minutes articles.
One which explicitly says: "I'm a guy, posting on Dev.to. This is my opinion. Computer Science is much more complex than this. Programming is a never ending rabbit hole of
Well actually-s. We are only scratching the surface. I am a simple guy in pajamas who works at a keyboard all day.":)
Well, dev.to has rubbish articles which claim those kinds of falsehoods, and it has fantastic articles which are honest and insightful - just ignore the former, and enjoy the latter ...
Of course I don't fall for nonsense like "JVM is a box, and JIT converts the .class file into machine code". But imagine: You are a fresh young one, trying to become an engineer, and you read an authorative truth bomb article. You follow the agenda for years and you end up stuck in the mud. You'd get disillusioned.
I think challenging white-knighting is the only way to defend the young ones from being disillusioned one day. Because when people get disillusioned, and get angry... bad things happen. And a lot of bad things are happening right now in the world because of well-tailored authorative lies...
Dev.to is an open "platform", anyone can post an article, so you'll always get some low-quality content - but, articles with outright falsehoods or misleading info are (I think) the exception rather than the rule - well that's just my impression or opinion, and happy if we agree to disagree :-)
I think Trusted Members and Moderators are doing their best to improve the quality. The amount of spam accounts and so on is an issue, to be honest, but if those that can mark those posts as low quality then it helps drown the slop a little more.
Personally, I think the situation is worse elsewhere than here at DEV. Yes, there is a problem but if we all either ignore or call out the lower quality stuff then things can improve.
Spam posts were way more of a thing some time ago than recently, I'm rarely seeing them anymore ... yeah the dev.to "mods" are doing an excellent job!
Agreed, leob. I think one of the DEV team said recently that marking something low quality - if you're able to - rather than, say, have a mod block outright helps stop the creation of replacement accounts. Having enough posts marked low quality, and so gain no traction, seems to be enough to make most spam accounts go elsewhere.
I see them' posts ;)
Dev.to moderation is finally in action :D
I place direct links to:
Signalling that the topic is much depper than something you can SOLID/Manifesto yourself out of like this post suggests
I receive "Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct"
And deletions :D
Rare jewel deletes the facts and flags my Dijkstra quote warning as non-constructive :D
Dijkstra is apparently a troll on Dev.to :D :D :D
You know nothing, Jon Snow :D
Maybe it's not because of the Dijkstra quote/link, but because of the tone you used - but, if you mean to say that the article that you referenced (about "Intent Driven Development (IDD)") is fluff, then I'm with you 100% - it seems vague, hollow and shallow to me :-)
At this point, we’re probably only loosely adjacent to the original topic of my post. A new post focused on moderation in DEV and similar communities might make more sense, though it may not ultimately be any more constructive.
Moderation is a thankless task - a bit like a game of whack-a-mole - and that’s all I want to add here. Peace and safe journey.
Great points. I've really dropped my engagement on Dev for two reasons. For a while, it swung towards a more junior audience and was filled with interview techniques and algorithm training, which is vital, but not something I feel I can contribute a lot to. More recently, I've found some good content like this that I can comment on, and I do feel that the counterpoints I've raised have been treated respectfully; but I find I'm always writing something and never hitting "submit" because I just can't be bothered with the fight.
Over the years, there have been burning issues that I appear to get on the wrong side of. I'm not typing ";" in JavaScript. Between TypeScript and JavaScript, I'll take JavaScript. I promote the increased use of AI across my team.
I guess I should expect heat :)
But the truth is, the best ideas are tested and challenged; that's how they improve. I want a debate, not a sports game chanting match...
Even as a newcomer, Mike, I can understand why more experienced developers might drift away from DEV. It doesn’t feel like initiatives such as CodeNewbie took off quite as strongly as they could have (and I mean no disrespect to the team), with many new developers coming straight here instead.
I’m sure you already know this, but a lot of the current discourse is driven by the algorithm-led nature of social media. As a gamer, for example, I can’t look up a walkthrough or guide on YouTube without wading through dozens of videos framing the same topic as "woke." It’s honestly pretty depressing.
And I totally agree with your closing sentiment - here's to honest debate!
Thanks for this comment — you’re absolutely right. DEV is actually a really nice place overall, because 99% of the comments are thoughtful and constructive. Even when someone disagrees, it’s usually possible to “disagree beautifully” and have a good discussion.
But under some of my posts — especially the more viral ones — I sometimes get commenters from outside the usual bubble who go straight into personal attacks. Quite often they even start with “no offense, but…” — which is usually a very reliable sign that offense is definitely coming 😄
I used to engage and discuss with them, and sometimes they even ended up admitting I had a point. But are they really my readers? I doubt it. These days I just don’t reply and report when needed.
Unfortunately, if you create and publish things publicly, that’s always part of the deal — but that doesn’t mean we should stay quiet.
I am a witness to the “no offense, but…” posts lol. But I understand if they start off as that because they see your post for the first time on this site. I do appreciate you keeping a positive vibe in the comments. Felt like everyone is inclusive and conformable to share their opinion!
Thank you for the thoughtful and lovely reply, Sylwia. It really resonated with me, even though I’ve only been part of the DEV community for about thirty days.
As a Trusted Member, I now mark down low-quality posts and, despite the team’s best efforts, the number of spam accounts can be a real eye-opener at times. That said, as you mentioned, there are usually more than enough tell-tale signs to watch out for.
And yes - your closing statement is the most important of all: we all have a voice. One thing I learned a long time ago is that the loudest voices on the internet are often the vocal minority, amplified by social media algorithms.
this resonates.
been thinking about this after the AI accusations on my articles. people defaulted to "you're lying" instead of "help me understand your process"
your line "reaction over reflection" captures why. strong certainty travels faster than nuanced thinking.
also why im grateful for the quality discussions on knowledge collapse
article.people like you, maame, peacebinflow chose curiosity over contradiction.
the "thoughtful voices withdraw" observation hits hard. creates selection
pressure for hot takes over depth.
building @the-foundation partly as answer to this - deliberate space for good-faith exploration over winning arguments.
appreciate you writing this.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Daniel.
I don’t think the AI “accusations” in your piece need further addressing - these auto-detection systems are nowhere near foolproof, after all.
It’s important to have these discussions if you’re part of a community like DEV. If you contribute but don’t want the community to be a healthy one, then… why contribute at all?
Happy to be part of The Foundation (still getitng the error message in Settings though). I can’t wait to see where it might lead.
I disagree out of principle!
Very well said, Rense!
This really resonates. It feels like so many conversations jump straight to “prove you wrong” mode instead of “help me understand your view.” I’ve seen the same thing nuance gets lost, and people end up defending positions instead of exploring ideas. I appreciate you calling out how different experiences shape different takes. Disagreement can be valuable, but only when it stays about the ideas, not the people. More curiosity and less reflexive pushback would make online spaces a lot healthier.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, ItsBot - less reflexive pushback would make online spaces far healthier. Unfortunately (and this seems to be a recurring theme in my replies this morning), the algorithm-driven nature of social media tends to promote exactly the kind of hurtful, personal attacks we’re talking about.
This is an quite interesting observation and I can totally relate with it.
I feel one should understand the difference between being curious and asking questions vs trying to prove one's point. Encouraging and addressing different opinions with open mindset is the key to create safe space.
Thanks for bringing up this discussion.👏
Thank you so much, Jasmin, for your thoughtful comment!
You’re absolutely right - the nuance you mention often gets lost these days, mostly because online discussions tend to be driven by algorithms rather than genuine exchange.
I'm glad that the post resonated with you. Thanks again!
This really resonated with me.
What you describe feels like one of the defining failure modes of online discourse right now: contradiction has become the default posture, not as a tool for clarification, but as a form of positioning. A lot of “discussion” threads aren’t conversations anymore — they’re performances, where the goal is to win, signal, or dunk, not to understand.
And the part that’s most frustrating isn’t disagreement itself (healthy disagreement is essential, especially in technical spaces), but how quickly disagreement is interpreted as moral judgment or personal attack. A preference becomes a verdict. A suggestion becomes an insult. Once that happens, people stop engaging with ideas and start defending identities.
The incentive structure of online platforms doesn’t help either: strong takes travel further than careful ones, certainty gets rewarded more than nuance, and being contrarian is often easier (and more visible) than being curious. Over time that shapes communities — not just the tone, but who even sticks around. The thoughtful voices don’t leave because they lack opinions, they leave because the cost of expressing them becomes too high.
I also really appreciate your point that different perspectives are often the product of different experiences. Two people can look at the same facts and still arrive at different conclusions without either being incompetent or acting in bad faith. That acknowledgment alone would defuse so many pointless conflicts.
More spaces need to normalize “I see it differently” without immediately escalating into hostility. If we want better discussions online, the shift really does start with curiosity and listening — not with being right.
Thank you for taking the time to post such a thoughtful response, Dominik - it’s very much appreciated. And you’re right, of course: online spaces need to do more to promote healthy and inclusive discourse.
Slightly off-topic, but I’ve always believed there’s no such thing as a stupid question - only stupid answers.
Thanks a lot — I really appreciate you taking the time to say that. I completely agree: fostering healthier and more inclusive discourse online is something we all have a responsibility for, and it’s encouraging to see people actively care about it.
And I’m with you on that last point as well. Curiosity should never be punished. Most progress starts with questions that feel naïve at first — it’s usually the answers (or the lack of good faith) that determine whether a space actually helps people learn. 🙂
Exactly, Dominik. Again, I’ve always believed that there are no stupid questions - only stupid answers. It’s a principle I wish places like Stack Overflow operated by, for example.
Exactly — I feel the same way. Questions are how people learn, and discouraging them only narrows who feels welcome to participate. When platforms optimize for being “technically correct” at the expense of being constructive, they lose a lot of potential contributors along the way.
Stack Overflow is a good example of that tension: it’s an incredible technical resource, but the culture around asking questions has often drifted toward gatekeeping rather than teaching. A principle of “no stupid questions, only bad answers” would go a long way toward making those spaces healthier and more sustainable.
Indeed. I recently read a great piece that suggested a few ways Stack Overflow might have avoided the engagement drop-off they’re currently experiencing. For example, a newbie Q&A section where answers weren’t immediately moved to their self-proclaimed "Tome of Knowledge."
I stopped visiting reddit for these reasons - snarky, hostile, contentious by default.
This site is different. I know it's important to its founders / maintainers who created the platform to be a supportive, open-source community in which to share knowledge and connect. I don't know how much the moderators have to interfere or filter out behind the scenes, but it seems the majority of the people here truly do engage in a more respectful form of discussion and understand that it results in a better learning environment.
I agree, Ben - Reddit really could (and should) have been so much more.
Not to compare too directly, but DEV feels miles ahead, even compared to places like Hashnode. I can’t quite explain it, but the overall vibe here is just… different.
As a Trusted Member with some moderation powers, spam seems to be the biggest issue here - not things like personal attacks.
True
Good read, Ive observed the same. "If youre not with me, youre against me". Gaming is a good example... "I like to farm materials and craft stuff" vs "I like to do the missions and got the loot boxes". They are both fun for their respective players.
Two things can be true at once. I like it, thank you for bring this up.
You’re welcome, and I’m glad you enjoyed the post, Evan. I really liked your example as well - it nicely reinforces that it’s okay to be different.
“Contrarian over curious” is such a sharp way to put it.
Online discussions feel less about learning now and more about defending identity.
Indeed, Daniel and hopefully - through communities like DEV - we can always have those useful discussions!
Couldn't agree more!
All we can do is to connect with like-minded people and continue being constructive in our discussions and nuanced in our views. Thanks for your post!
Appreciate the comment, Seb and couldn't have said it better myself!
Polarization is the natural result of any system where an applied influence creates unequal response across its components. To say: expected.
But more earnestly, this is and will always be an issue. I'm glad your observations seem to be shared by others, because it's with observation and thought we can shift the tide.
"No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood."
A great insight to the subject, camb - thank you for sharing.
Loved you closing line too!
This really landed for me. The shift from curiosity to certainty feels like the quiet root of a lot of our current discourse problems. “Reaction over reflection” is such a precise way to name it — especially in spaces where speed and visibility reward confident takes more than careful ones. Appreciate you putting language to something many of us sense but don’t articulate as clearly.
Thank you so much, Tapas, for your kind comment - I really appreciate it!
Honestly, I’ve been thinking about this topic long before I joined DEV, so it’s great to see that what I wrote resonated with so many fellow members.
Great read! It’s so true that online discussions often slide into reflexive contradiction instead of genuine curiosity and exchange — people default to “winning” rather than understanding. The reminder to listen first and disagree respectfully is really valuable, especially in tech communities where diverse perspectives can make everyone better.
Thanks, Cyber. Comments such as your own are truly appreciated. I was totally suprised to wake-up this morning and see how much traction this post had achieved.
When you speak of the need to "listen first and disagree respectfully", you've very much hit the nail on the head!
Totally agree! The general enshitification of Internet, promoted by the algorithms, reward this kind of behaviour. Most of the time people write stuff just to provoke reactions and get visibility.
By the way, I like your "written by a human" badge!
Exactly, Fernando. The humanitarian in me still wants to believe that most of these "hot takes" come from a desire to promote, rather than being beliefs the commentator truly holds.
Yes - I actually have a whole series of similarly themed badges, like “Drawn by a Human,” and so on. I came across them online quite randomly - they were free to use - but I can’t seem to find the source now. I might upload them at some point.
Interesting to read!
Thank you, Nadeem - glad that you found it interesting!
Really relatable.
I’ve noticed the same — many conversations online turn into “who is right” instead of “what can we learn.”
In tech and product spaces especially, a small disagreement quickly becomes personal, and then the actual idea gets lost. The best discussions I’ve been part of were the ones where people said “I see it differently” instead of “you’re wrong.”
Good-faith disagreement actually improves ideas. Defensive disagreement just ends the conversation.
Couldn't agree more, Bhavin. If we "discuss" issues without personal attacks there is the opportunity for all sides to learn something in the process.
Very well put, fully agree... particularly "different perspectives are often shaped by different experiences."... inclusion does not mean consensus, not every decision can be inclusive but everyone should have the chance to be heard.
Exactly, Shitij. For example, people can become radicalised online because social media’s algorithm-driven feeds tend to show us only the content we already agree with. It’s a reminder of why actively seeking diverse perspectives is so important.
Great perspective!
Lately I’ve been feeling like a lot of “discussions” online aren’t really discussions anymore. They’re more like reflexes. Someone says a thing, and the default response isn’t curiosity or even disagreement — it’s contradiction. Not to understand, but to push back.
And honestly, disagreement isn’t the problem. The speed at which it turns personal is.
The reaction to Sven Vincke’s comments around Highguard is a good example. That could’ve been an interesting conversation about creative direction, expectations, and taste. Instead, it turned into camps almost immediately. If you didn’t like what was said, you were written off. If you did, you were assumed to be defending it blindly. No room for “this just isn’t for me” or “I value different things.”
You see the same pattern everywhere — tech, tools, workflows, products. A suggestion gets read as an attack. A preference turns into a moral stance. Suddenly the conversation isn’t about the idea anymore, it’s about defending your position like it’s part of your identity.
I think part of this comes from how online spaces reward reaction over reflection. Strong takes travel faster. Certainty gets more engagement than nuance. Over time it becomes easier to be contrarian than curious — easier to push back than to ask, “Why does this work for you?”
What gets lost is the very normal reality that people come to conclusions through different experiences. Two people can look at the same problem, see the same facts, and still land in different places without either being stupid, malicious, or wrong. But the assumption of bad faith shows up way too fast now.
I’ve also noticed how this quietly drives people away. Not the loud ones — the thoughtful ones. People who do have opinions, but decide it’s not worth the energy to share them if everything turns hostile or dismissive. When that happens, communities lose depth, even if they stay loud.
This isn’t about avoiding disagreement. Healthy debate matters, especially in technical spaces. Ideas should be challenged. But there’s a big difference between engaging with an argument and engaging against a person. Sometimes just saying, “I see this differently,” is enough to keep a conversation open.
Spaces that still value good-faith discussion feel rarer these days, and honestly, more important than ever. If we want better conversations online, I don’t think it starts with being more right — it starts with being a little more willing to listen.
This really resonates. It feels like disagreement online has shifted from “let’s explore this” to “let me prove you wrong.” The point about thoughtful voices going quiet is especially true — nuance doesn’t survive well in reaction-driven spaces. Conversations get better when curiosity leads instead of ego.
Thank you for your reply, Shemith. Your closing line really captures what I was hoping to say in a nutshell - conversations truly improve when they’re led by curiosity!
Well said! Disagreement isn’t the problem; the rush to contradict and personalize everything is.
So many good conversations die because no one pauses to ask why someone thinks differently.
Exactly this, Hadil. If we all paused and asked the "why", conversations could greatly improve.
👌
Thought-provoking post—curiosity over contrarianism could indeed foster healthier online discussions
Thank you for your kind words, Vasu. Indeed, while I feel we’ve somewhat lost curiosity-led discussions, there’s no reason we can’t rediscover them.
Thank you for your sharing.
You're welcome, Eugenia. Obviously, it is something I feel passionate about - glad it resonated with you!
I remember one day I was trying to make the other person understand that I agreed with her, it's that level, took me like 4 comments to finally make her understand that I wasn't arguing.
It can happen all too easily, miggu. I sometimes wonder if we’ve become so used to the way we interact online that our default position - online or in real life - is defensiveness.
@richardpascoe Same like a blog, Written by a human was highlighted!!!
I think it is an important thing to highlight - maybe not so much here on DEV, though as a Trusted Member I do see plenty of purely AI-generated content - but certainly more broadly across the internet.
Really well put. It’s a thoughtful reminder that nuance and curiosity get lost too easily—and that making room for different tastes is usually where the most interesting conversations actually start.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Tharun. Let's have more diverse and meaningful conversations - please!
是的就是这样