You're viewing a single thread.
I just looove how ppl believe that switching from one VC-funded centralised corpo platform to another VC-funded (slitghly less) centralised corpo platform is a good thing /s
Just because it's (partially) OSS doesn't make it good. The corp still holds all the power and might sell out, but at least they got free volunteers to program for them so the C-level could get more money!
(Now don't tell me that Bluesky is "federated". They still hold all the power over site rules and moderation. The only little concession you get is that you are allowed to host your own data)
Apparently virtue signaling about pseudofederation is enough for libs to "get hope for the future of the internet" while they happily lick the boot of yet another centralized "trust me bro this isn't going to enshittify itself, not this time" corp
The only little concession you get is that you are allowed to host your own data)
Nah, that's not even a concession. You just pay for a portion of their server costs at no gain in influence.
Problem with Masto though is that the technological leadership is really bonkers, hardly anything meaningful happened over the past 2 years with lots of serious issues not getting fixed
I just loooove how pppl believe that whether something has VC-funding or is federated has any effect at all on how people pick software and systems to use.
I mean, users don't even not care, because "caring vs not caring" assumes that the metric they can care about or not mentally exists in their context for judging a decision. Which it does not. Which is a very important part so many software designers of user-facing software forget, to users a short-form posting instance is a tool. A hammer. You use the one you got. Once it becomes defunct, you get a new one. You pick one that all your friends use, because hey, must be great if everyone uses it. Does it have some downsides? Maybe, but frankly it's a hammer who cares?!
Nice profile picture!
uuu thx