@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net the appeal is that it's like twitter pre-musk
@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net so in theory (I'm skeptical in practice) it's not vulnerable the same way twitter is. I think they're also supposed to be fixing an issue with fedi: non-portable accounts
@lain@lain.com @georgia@netzsphaere.xyz @Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net enough people care enough to keep implementing it but yeah i don't think the average user knows what it is
the average user doesnt get the difference between a imdb comment page and facebook.
@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net you can move your account to another server in theory but I don’t think that would actually happen
Those types of people crave centralization and authority over everything else... and Bluesky was "from that same guy when it was perfect and the state ran everything."
@Hyolobrika @anemone Because this is what people want.
New centralized social networks can't compete with Twitter and other incumbents. They can offer slightly better moderation and slightly better UI, but this is not enough. The network size is far more important.
Decentralization, on the other hand, is a strong competitive advantage. Everyone wants more control and more choice, so startups have to promise that. Of course, the easiest way is "fake until you make it" aka "progressive decentralization". Every VC-funded web3 social startup did that, with predictable outcomes. Eventually people learned to avoid them, so the marketing strategy has changed and now we're in the era of "web3 but without blockchain". Same scams under a different name.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
The more echo-chamber the better as far as they're concerned. Especially facing the political backlash they would like to ignore.
This.
They all see 2020 as the golden period - where everything was a giant echo chamber and any contrarian opinion was silenced.
they are switching to oauth apparently (a matrix implementation of it, not google/etc SSO)
More flexible moderation and self-moderation (blocking, muting) tools and more due process for admin moderation would be nice.
Have you seen any of my posts about flexible filter lists?
Instead of blocking and muting, I want to be able to write scripts consisting of a collection of "filters" which would each consist of a pattern followed by an action. The pattern would be a boolean expression that could contain variables related to the post content, media, author, instance of origin, title/cw field etc and would support regex matching. The action would be to hide all media, hide specific media (potentially based on the aforementioned variables), hide posts, with or without leaving a header that tells you that something was hidden and being able to program what that header says per-filter.
Should also be able to import filter scripts written by people you trust the judgement.
This sounds a lot like MRFs, I know, but AFAIK you can't let end users write MRFs for security reasons (?) so maybe a domain-specific language would be better? It would certainly be easier/more fun to write.
With such flexible tools for users and admins they could do things like block/ban an entire server *except* for a handful of users that are actually OK. Wanting to do that is what lead me to this idea in the first place.
