Comment on Tear Down Walls, and Build Bridges

• sudneo@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  While I disagree with some of the positions in this specific instance. They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse. Reducing everything to the individual experience is focusing on technical features but not on the collective and social aspects.

  There are also tons of people who can’t really help but using the same corporate metrics: growth, reach, users count, adoption. Not everyone agrees on these as objectives to pursue, and it makes sense to be vocal about the general direction from that perspective (because it goes way beyond my personal narrow experience).

  That said, I can’t stand those who use excuses like “privacy” or “there are bad actors”, as their main motivations, because these are also largely individual problems. On the other hand, opposing to keep separated a corporate, for profit, social media from the fediverse is a whole different matter.

  source

  • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    the nature and direction of the fediverse

    The fediverse is a decentralized network. It doesn't have a cohesive nature/direction. It's made up of servers providing twitter-like experiences, servers providing reddit-like experiences, forums, personal websites, video platforms, etc. You'll never know all the places your fediverse data has reached because the fediverse doesn't have hard boundaries so you can't possible measure it all.

    Which is why I think complaining about other what other software does is pointless. Instead, users should be pushing their own software to adopt more features to allow them to control their experience and data.

    source

    • sudneo@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I disagree, it is a set of multiple entities but there is a common denominator. For example, free software, no advertising as a business model, not commercial, not run by big corporations and talking over AP.

      I think it’s not pointless nor wrong to discuss these shared values (de facto values, beyond the technical fact I can spin up an AP software) and how certain parties do not share them and therefore should not be part of the fediverse in principle.

      source

      • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        For example, free software, no advertising as a business model, not commercial, not run by big corporations and talking over AP.

        None of those are requirements to be part of the fediverse. The fediverse existed long before ActivityPub was even proposed. Free software, ad free, non commercial, not run by big corporations are all just coincidence because its a grassroots effort. Even now, there's multiple companies invested in the fediverse: Mozilla, Flipboard, Facebook, Automatic being the most obvious.

        Even if you take those as given, none of those dictate any shared values. Bridgy-fed itself meets all of those requirements but clearly holds differing values. Truth Social, Gab, Spinster, etc are all on the fediverse despite being abhorrent to the majority of the rest of the fediverse.

        I'm in favor of groups maintaining shared values and enforcing policies based on them. But those policies can never apply to an entire network made up of distinct projects, servers, and people all with different ideas about how it should work.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse.

    on the other hand, they don’t have to right to spam an independent creators github repository with threats.

    source

    • sudneo@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Of course not, that’s idiotic behavior, but obviously not what I was referring to

      source