There is plenty of room for subjectivity when we are talking about the role aggregators play online.

Stating it does not make it so.

If Reddit deleted all of the content that was more than 24 hours old, the front page would look the same.

That is because the current state of Reddit is end-stage failure. Here's what it looked like 5 years ago. Not at all the same, is it? This is what happens when systems break down.

You can say that the fundamental problem that aggregators face is organization of content, the act of clicking on links doesn't require any organization.

The act of finding something to click on does, though. Otherwise, why aren't we all still using Yahoo? It's the original curated content aggregator.

You can say that aggregators are all about organizing interesting content, but that doesn't make me "Unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect."

No, everything else makes you unavoidably, wholly and fundamentally incorrect.

If I misrepresented your views on hashtags fine, but I don't think that I misrepresented things so poorly that you should be so offended.

That sounds very little like an apology.

your profile clearly shows that you prefer following tags over following people.

And what on earth makes you think I would choose to impose my modalities on others? As a reminder, we're debating a thread you linked in which

1) OP suggested the way towards quality was super-users responsible for curating everything

2) which I lashed out against because it disenfranchises the individual user

3) and then proceeded to write up 2500 words about how the system should empower the individual user to self-discovery

4) and for which you've already issued one non-apology for putting words in my mouth.

Unless my eyes betrayed me, then I was not wrong about your preference, even if you didn't say it above.

And I have already said, in as many words - "*Your reasons for coming here do not have to be my reasons for coming here. A good system accommodates our needs equally.*"

As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong, or simple offend you) but your arguments have nothing to do with following people.

My argument is that following people is not enough, and that without some serious groundwork now, when we're all on a first-name basis, we're fucked then, when a thousand users a day join up. Never once have I said that following people is a bad idea. Never once have I said that I think it shouldn't be the focus of Hubski.

One can exist without killing other. People can use hubski in two different ways.

You weren't here when mk killed tags and the whole thing crashed and burned. See, it's statements like these that give me the grounding to call you wholly and fundamentally incorrect.

The fundamental reason that everybody hears "make if different" when you say "make it better" is because you use hubski in a different way than most people do.

Why would they? Never once have I said "use it like me" or "if you're like me" or "in my case" or "I find that." Every example I've used is a fabrication that doesn't follow my behavior. YOU are the one that keeps dragging me into this. I haven't mentioned my preferences once. However, since you've dragged me into it:

I follow essentially no one because three influxes ago, everyone I followed (and there were maybe 40 people) ended up following the exact same circle-jerk topics. Everyone kept having the exact same circle-jerk discussions. In order to get new content in my stream, I had to unfollow literally everyone because the circle-jerk got so strong that the exact same links were in the exact same place in slightly different order. The "follow users" paradigm bonked hard for me. So I tried something else.

Further, I've got nigh onto 800 followers. If I enter into a vaguely reciprocal relationship with any of them, I start that feedback loop right back up again. So who do I follow?

Well, funny you mention it, because the stuff I post and the stuff I follow and the conversations I have are usually with the same people. A lot of them don't follow me. yet we end up in the exact same place because we have the same affinity for things.

So the "tags" thing scales. It scales just fine. At my level, "follow" is already kaput. And that's why I haven't brought "me" into things up until now - it's impossible to say "following ceases to work at 500 followers" without sounding like an uberdouche, even when it's true.

By saying that the current organization is wrong, you are saying that it should be different.

I didn't say the "current organization" was wrong, I argued that the thinking behind it was wrong. It still is. You've made not a single counter-argument against my statements. You're just dancing around semantics and attempting to find my shadow in my statements.

it isn't there. It's an accurate statement regardless of context. And I think you owe me the courtesy to take what I say at face value without assigning ulterior motives to my statements.