111–120 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a very inspiring answer :( The consequences of taking VC money are going to come home to roost at some point.
We'll see! The history of funded companies popularizing open protocols is not without precedent. I'm inspired by Netscape, which was the VC-backed company that made the web happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a very inspiring answer :( The consequences of taking VC money are going to come home to roost at some point.
We'll see! The history of funded companies popularizing open protocols is not without precedent. I'm inspired by Netscape, which was the VC-backed company that made the web happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it rejects my german phone number. So, double fail. What's this obsession with using phone numbers. It's 2024! Any scammer can buy a burner phone. Owning a phone proves nothing other than that you own a phone.
Did you possibly enter the prefix +49 as part of the number? It seems to expect a number without the country prefix, starting with a number like "174" or whatever your provider prefix is...
Anyway, it hard rejects +49176..., 0049176..., 0176..., 176...; it correctly normalizes each of those to +49176... and then rejects the number. My number is fine. Their validation isn't.
Anyway, for a new social network to repeat the security/privacy mistake of its predecessors (wrongly assuming phone operators are trustworthy and users never change their number) is just madness. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence that a lot of thought went into the whole thing.
IMHO, phone numbers as a thing should just go away completely. Weird legacy identifiers from the last century. Absolutely no redeeming features. Hard to remember, easy to spoof. Etc. Why build your new network on the crumbling remains of an old one and give a lot of control to the typical abusers of the phone system (spammers, scammers, oppressive regimes, etc.)?
Requiring phone number is a straight no go from me, sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Understandable! We hope to relax this but we felt it was necessary to maintain the quality of the network for now.
Doesn't this go against the comic in the post that claims that it's easy to block what you don't want to see? Also that it's an open network? Why not just let everyone in if the moderation tools are good? I definitely would never give my phone number to a social network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Understandable! We hope to relax this but we felt it was necessary to maintain the quality of the network for now.
Doesn't this go against the comic in the post that claims that it's easy to block what you don't want to see? Also that it's an open network? Why not just let everyone in if the moderation tools are good? I definitely would never give my phone number to a social network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a very inspiring answer :( The consequences of taking VC money are going to come home to roost at some point.
We'll see! The history of funded companies popularizing open protocols is not without precedent. I'm inspired by Netscape, which was the VC-backed company that made the web happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't this go against the comic in the post that claims that it's easy to block what you don't want to see? Also that it's an open network? Why not just let everyone in if the moderation tools are good? I definitely would never give my phone number to a social network.
Having good tools to increase the quality of your network doesn't mean you should willingly let the whole network decline in quality.
Or is it like Tildes whose goal is to have a mobile website that is just as good as a native app?