rglullis
"oh, I want it to grow, I just don't it want to grow with people that I don't like"
You can dress it however you want, it's still elitist, reactionary and exclusive.
Quantity is quality, if you have good filters in place.
I never understood people that argue something is bad by looking at the median case. The problem of Reddit, Twitter and Facebook is not due to the amount of people they have, and they were absolutely fine until they tried to exploit their userbases.
(Aside for @blaze@feddit.org: see what I mean about Fedi's anti-growth and reactionary culture? Our friend here is not an isolated case)
If you are that famous or worried about trademark, you shouldn't be using someone else's server. Tom Hanks can just buy e.g tomhanks.actor domain and set up the @me@tomhanks.actor AP actor.
I keep repeating this: the weird part is that we still have all these companies and institutions being okay with depending on someone else's namespace. Having the NYT still announcing their Twitter or Instagram for social media presence is the same as using aol.com for their email.
marginalized groups, and the fear that someone is creating a database that could be used to easily seek them out and use it for trolling and such.
The fear might be justified. I don't question that the issue exists, but the belief that they can stop it.
Let me repeat: there is no real privacy in any social network. If people are genuinely afraid of being targeted because of what they write online, the solution is not to give them a false sense of privacy, but to educate and empower them to use messaging platforms that are provably secure.
Those that are telling marginalized folks to use instance XYZ because "they don't federate with threads and therefore are safe" think that they are being helpful, but in reality are putting them at even more risk because they are telling all of them to concentrate in the same place and make the targeted tracking even easier for malicious actors.
Yeah, lots of people were trying to point that out, those people were not the ones screaming at snarfed. It was the "mah privacy" crowd that was panicking at the thought of data being available and searchable in a server outside of their own.
Pretty much any payment processor nowadays work in a way that the merchant has no direct access with payment data. And is there any place where Stripe and/or is not widely known?
And if you are an admin of a paid-only instance (like mine) then obviously you want to use a trustworthy processor to avoid yet-another friction point. In my case, the only people that didn't want to use Stripe were the ones that wanted to pay me in cryptocurrency.
Please do take an honest try and let me know what you think of the UX.
Word of warning: the "no admin to censor you" also means "no one to help you in case you lose your account".
No, admins might think of defederation as a way to avoid interaction with larger instances, but in the case of the bridge it was mostly regular users crying "I don't my content going in a place that I do not control", with "lack of opt-in" and "this violates GDPR" being the main reasons cited to be against it.
With Threads is the same thing. The whole thing with users asking their admins to block threads is not because they were worried about Threads pushing too much to the smaller instances, but to block Threads from mining data from the Fediverse to their profit.
you’d just get a bunch of chargebacks from stolen credit cards lol.
Criminals use stolen credit cards for high value items that can be sold quickly. If criminals really wanted to do mass manipulation via AP servers, it will be easier/faster/cheaper for them to spin up their own servers than signing up for paid accounts.
The one counter-argument that I would accept though: what if bad actors running psyops become commercial providers to attract legit customers and mix it with their agents?
If you just want to see the content, you don't need an account. You can just pull the data, like opening up a different website.
What you want is the ability for some other server to push content to a server that the admin might have chosen to say "no, I do not want to have data from them, and I do not want to have my resources used by these users".
They won't. Not at first. First we will get maybe 50k, LW will do their thing and try to gobble up the majority of users, alien.top can also help absorb part of this crowd and I could even finally convince some other admins to set up fediverser on their instances to help with the migration.
But the important thing is that this type of backing from the mainstream would mean free marketing.
All of those people, of course not. But I expect the increased user base and media attention to bring the following:
All of those things translate indirectly into more business opportunities, none of which need to sacrifice the ideals of the open social web.