|
Top-level
@tomw I’ve found the growth of centralized social media to be a demoralizing thing. I wonder about the “positives” that you posit for centralized social media - ease of discovery is the only one that comes to mind… and even there, it brings other downsides: you now need to have “verification” to know if the person you found is the person that you actually wanted. All I know is that the just the idea of decentralized social media makes me happier than I was. 5 comments
 @uhl_me I wrote it that way because I think it's clear that most people experienced it as a significant upgrade in ease of use compared to the setup and maintenance of a website. Unfortunately. @tomw I do understand, and sympathize with, that point of view. It’s more than a little frustrating, however, that despite the fact that applications built on open protocols (HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP) fueled the growth of the early public Internet, the builders of “Web 2.0” chose a closed path. Nothing against a profit motive, but I’d prefer that you seek that profit by being the best at doing something - not by being the only choice. @uhl_me Worse, they made a big song and dance at first about being "open" at least in terms of APIs, then cut all of that off after they had built a user base! @uhl_me While I support your point that you seek being best at doing something, it also can be seen that users or customers sometimes do not seek 'the' best solution - but rather the most convenient one... |
Gregory's Server
@uhl_me I think it is generally far easier for most people to post a quick update about what they're doing than to go and eg. update their website. Especially for small local things, they feel able to post a lot more info up on social media and have it seen vs struggling to update a website that mostly isn't looked at. And the info doesn't just sit there, it is pushed out to their followers, at least in theory.