Good! Well I am brand new here so this is pretty much all I have seen, but good to hear it isn't representative

No of-course criticising it isn't abuse, but have you read some of the stuff on here? It's really not a good look for Bluesky. Right now you and I are disagreeing but it is not combative or abusive. That is what she is advocating for. A space where that can happen - and this doesn't seem to be it.

I think there are two issues. 1) People aren't criticising her take, they are criticising a misunderstanding of her take. I think she makes it clear that nice Bluesky views ARE her views. 2) Most of this stuff isn't debate, it is abuse of a woman.

Exactly! So you're agreeing with the journalist. The people on here who have read the article have misunderstood it - when she says she prefers "such a place" she is referring to a hypothetical digital town square where people can debate without being subjected to racist abuse - NOT twitter.

Yes but "such a place" refers to the digital town square she has postulated in the previous paragraph. Her point is that such a place (which doesn't exist yet) would be a better alternative to Twitter than Bluesky because it would enable civilised debate WITHOUT having to include racist comment.

I don't know if you follow this journalist but if you do you'll know she is very far from being a Trump supporter. The personal attack of a woman on here is such a bad look for Bluesky

That is exactly what the journalist is saying. You are agreeing with her

Exactly! So you are agreeing with the journalist!

But "these people" doesn't include this journalist. Nowhere does she say she wants a forum that tolerates Nazis or racists. Wanting to avoid a left-wing echo chamber is not the same as wanting a forum that tolerates Nazis. She clearly says the same as you about twitter in this and previous articles

But noone is advocating tolerating bigotry. The article advocates creating a civilised forum for differing views. It has been misunderstood as preferring Twitter (with racist comments) to Bluesky, and as a result of this misunderstanding a woman (the journalist) has been abused on here by 1000s.

(digital town square = civilised place with a variety of opinions NOT a place with loads of racist abuse)

The point the article makes is 1) twitter is shit, 2) JK, like most people, would prefer a nicer place without vile racism, but 3) replacing what is becoming a right-wing echo chamber (Twitter) with a left wing echo chamber is not the answer, so 4) can we have a digital town square

You've all misunderstood the article. She is not advocating for Twitter. "Such a place" (in her final paragraph) clearly refers to a digital townsquare which the writer would like to exist but doesn't yet.