361–370 of 561 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.
They banned Laura Looner for just showing up.
> don’t build your castle in a kingdom that somebody else controls > I’ll encourage folks to drive those conversations to community-specific spaces (like Discourse, Discord, etc). Who does the author think controls Discord?
> Who does the author think controls Discord? I think you misunderstand what sort of control they speak about. I think what they're getting at is "Who is doing the moderation?" rather than "Who is maintaining the servers?", so the community aspect instead of the technical details. I think Discord let people do the moderation part pretty much however they want, compared to say Twitter where there is one moderation tea…
So he's motivated by "moving people to kingdoms", which sounds like the exact thing he's calling out the big social platforms on, but adopting himself on a smaller scale.
In the end, respecting users isn't the guiding force. "Kingdom building" is. Brand building. Users herded like cattle from castle to castle. It's "trust me bro" website ethics replacing corporate social media policies.
I am a huge BLuesky fan. I have switched my entire social experience to it. I get good engagement, mostly with seemingly decent people. I almost always can find interesting things to read. I have moderated the shit out of my feed. I rarely see things I do not want to (I had to give up politics and current events after the election). I use the list feature to curate separate feeds for different topics (music, programm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Openness",as far as for-profit businesses are concerned, is a marketing strategy. Once enough users are locked in, there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free.
You're assuming that every for profit business is entirely devoid of morality. This was not true under the Keynesian compromise of the 20th century, and is not true of every business today. Just because people are sometimes selfish doesn't mean they never have any principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You'll be surprised how many people think they can just use first.lastname@gmail.com and have email magically appear in their account. Since I like surprises, do tell ... how many people think that?
At least 6 with my not-that-common (maybe somewhere in the middle) first and last name combination. Maybe more, but at least six of the emails meant for others that I've received, implied they live at those six unique locations. I know one of them likes to get the vegetarian meal option when traveling internationally by plane. (Companies should really validate email address OWNERSHIP before spamming innocent people.)
The alternative explanation, that they roitinely use [your name].[your last name]@gmail.com as their email, and don't realize that it never works is... unlikely IMO.
I think the entire attitude of the author coming in to this is wrong. It's zero sum. It's an assumption that you're either gaining from the platform or the platform is gaining from you. This is wrong. The platform has network effects that make everyone well off. Google owns Youtube, yes it gets enormous value from creating/owning the platform. But Youtube isn't exploiting Mr Beast, Mr Beast also gains enormous value…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they may be confused by it yet it is not a hard concept
It's not a hard concept, but it is a stupid one. Phone numbers for example you can take with you when you switch providers. Email has the provider hardcoded into your email address, thus every new provider means you have a new email. The Web still lacks a first-class concept of a user identify that you can take with you across servers.
I'm very happy with X, once you do a bit of tuning.
I am a huge BLuesky fan. I have switched my entire social experience to it. I get good engagement, mostly with seemingly decent people. I almost always can find interesting things to read. I have moderated the shit out of my feed. I rarely see things I do not want to (I had to give up politics and current events after the election). I use the list feature to curate separate feeds for different topics (music, programm…
I like, and want to use Bluesky, but I mostly use socials to share my content and engagement is not comparable - I may get 200 "likes" on Twitter and 7 on Bluesky, for example. So while I would like to stop using Twitter, it has no alternative for me, currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and then experts will use ad-free alternative clients and most people won't. But it will still be better than other social media systems that ban alternative clients.
I guess then Bluesky will ban alternative clients and start charging for API, a-la Musk?
(They did vaguely try once, but there was such a backlash that they backed off.)