Comment on The problem of cross-community posting
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Different conversations in different moods and cultures on the same subject are something completely human and normal, and tech should not work to undo this. When we have seen tech undo this is with social media silos, after all.
Which is to say, any “solution” that integrates those conversations into one view should be, where possible, client-side only. That way I can opt in to view some conversations as unified or not, depending on eg.: how well do I know the context, or whether the OP is a person known for cross-posting (and to where), while at the same time not forcing everyone else to have their culture of conversation subsumed into essentially an attempt to make topical subreddits.
This is also how I feel.
Getting different perspectives from different circles instead of being migrated to one dominant website culture is a big part of why I haven’t moved to piefed, since it seems like that semi-forced centralization is part of their vision.
Agree. Piefed doesn’t give me much confidence with their “centrist-esque” more-centralized-than-not, and actually has lost some in my eyes since the creator has specifically pushed code for antagonizing one specific member of the community for the sin of [checks papers] behaving in a quirkier way than the average.
I don’t get how you think its centralised here. What code are you referring to?
Getting different perspectives from different circles instead of being migrated to one dominant website culture is a big part of why I haven’t moved to piefed, since it seems like that semi-forced centralization is part of their vision.
Have you used Piefed and its multi-community comment system? I am asking because from using it, I don’t the impression of “being migrated to one dominant website culture”.
SorteKanin@feddit.dk 1 day ago
Finally someone who gets it. This “problem” is in fact a total non-issue. Different groups talk about the same thing all the time. This is good, not bad.