My, if it isn’t the consequences of his own actions come to find Elmo again.
Attempting solidarity pragmatically.
I don’t believe in imaginary property.
My, if it isn’t the consequences of his own actions come to find Elmo again.
Wow, I didn’t think they’d implement anything more cancerous than various site preferred paywalling. This reeks of needing some good numbers to blow out headed into the IPO.
If it’s this bad already, get ready for a circus.
It’s a distilled version of ‘the wisdom of the crowds’. With all the dog piling that comes with reactions to things that are pointed at the wrong audience. There’s generally some people with baggage in there somewhere who will take issue, and you get downvoted.
However, what’s always interesting about these platforms is where good ideas rise, where they come from, and how controversial they are, all of which you lose with the twitter/mastodon architecture.
It may be easier to find your crowd, but how useful is that to you depends on what you use your online presence for.
When the barrier to entry is technical in nature you get a selection of the competent in that space as your representation. It’s not perfect, but it beats zuck, musk and Huffman.
I think some of that devolution going to be inevitable or you’re going to face charges of censorship from some corners, which is just it’s own cycle of rage. The network gets bigger, people click what they click and the aggregate of what our animal brains react to has a lot to be angry about.
What I worry most about is the acceleration of that cycle because we gradually gravitate towards instances with our preferred moderation or slant, which I can already see happening anyway.
I guess, at best, that It might be a cure with some side effects because it’s necessarily going to play with in/out crowd dynamics.
If this is at an instance level… Fine? As long as it’s visible.
I’d worry you’re promoting some amount of information siloing if the current general purpose instance structure doesn’t hold though.
I’ve got 2, largely out of curiosity for what defederation meant as far as user perspective.
When exporting comes online I’ll likely make an effort to spin up an instance if it’s still feasible… So there will be a 3rd cake?On the positive side I don’t think you’re going to find many people wanting to sock puppet mild takes and noise rock.
From a lifetime of small message boards It’s easier to drive engagement in smaller groups. If there’s less overall exhaustion with the basics in any niche, splitting the new members is a good way to keep differentiated material. Also growing communities can end up boxing out their regulars. It might be hard to get started, but the small communities tend to be resilient at some point, they just migrate service to service.
Most of the people who moved here were especially motivated to overcome the barriers to entry to, so I’m not sure the numbers still hold.
Isn’t the key operating word here business?
With no advertising on the line and no operations currently in place operating at anything but a loss there isn’t a commercial interest at stake.
I mean the Internet and Ann landers get awkward questions all the time.
First there was beans, and they were upvoted, and the threadiverse saw that it was good?
Like legitimately no rhyme or reason to elevate beans above any other thing.
Honestly today, just like any other ordinary day, and for no particular reason more than any other: the greater hive mind woke up and demonstrated it’s first entire federated thought.
Ipso ergo beans. In every sort form and flavour.
Normally not a comment I’d apply wordy science too, but let’s see if I can do better than an upvote. Because this is exactly what I can’t let go lately.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/1/013029/pdf
Authorship of paper is 2016, and we’re always talking about larger populations than CEOs, so there is going to be 0 scientific rigor that can be applied to any study.
Still given the perspective of social behavior being about the product of advocates/bigots on any platform; where are the good, non rent seeking social media CEOs? The standard bad behavior of social networks is always around the issue of monetization, the first wave of ‘well meaning’ people have been replaced with a mandate for profit and a limited playbook. The social contagion was taking buyouts, now it’s turning screws to users.
Weirdly Zuckerberg looks like a model citizen, he’s still playing the growth game.
I think long term someone will come up with something. How hostile the community they arrive to?
Entirely up to how well we remember how it went the last time.
Ahh always nice to revisit my first dose of propaganda.
I would have downloaded a car if I could have.
The most wonderful part of this, for the unfortunately uncoordinated like me:
scrolling and accidently clicking a random card is now always a random post and not an ad launching a browser window I immediately close and curse.
It’s amazing how bad it got for awhile out there.
The idea is to remove profit motive, and distribute the actual costs to the users or admins.
Same way as any enthusiast could have run their own BBS back in the day. The perk now is they’re linked together.
I would be shocked if it stays like that forever everywhere, but since the early days there’s generally been some way to eat the cost.
It keeps them from participating by demoting them to the kids table, but you’re still in a glass house to some extent.
I think this is the right answer, but the structure is going to require some amount of frequent drama just like this every time. You can keep an open federation policy until proven malicious, or you can verify partners, but I don’t see the way around discussions.
I’ve checked the frontpage from time to time just to monitor what’s changing, but I have yet to log in.