|
Top-level
@leberschnitzel that is the standard response and it is wrong on so many levels I may fail to address them all. The Fediverse cannot have it both sides. If you claim private ownership as reason for the right to make up your own rules, then there is no difference to Elon‘s way in handling X. The Fediverse then becomes what it fights against. A central instance for delisting servers is something that has to adhere to international legal norms. Otherwise we are back to square one. 4 comments
 @markuswerle let's go at it the other way than: What do you want social media to look like?  This post by @Gargron is like a cross section of the current, Mastodon-dominated fediverse and its discontents. Quite useful, in the final analysis, cause this guy is pretty amazing with the comparing himself to a refugee while I'm pretty damn sure he's never spoken to a refugee that wasn't serving him food. Likewise learning that they are aware of the problems, but are attempting to use a hackneyed UX approach to make it go away, a good bellwether of things. @leberschnitzel side comment: Twitter‘s moderation team (before Elon) was far from perfect, but their solution approach was way better than what the Fediverse is trying to do. I recommend reading interviews with Yoel Roth. |
Gregory's Server
@leberschnitzel Comparing a Fediverse instance to a club disregards relevant aspects of social media.
Claiming that everyone can create their own instance is wrong. I won’t go into details here. More importantly it doesn’t solve the problem of getting cancelled and disconnected from people on other instances. All it needs are two people who decide to collaborate in the exclusion process.