Notices by Tiago Peixoto (tiago@social.skewed.de)

@mathieugenois

I have to agree with you. Mastodon is the perfect place to be for people who dislike social networks!

@philippsteinkrueger I'm leaving my account here. I still think that I at some point there will be a reasonable fediverse interface, possibly a forked version of mastodon, with the missing pieces implemented. Maybe this is where people will migrate to when bluesky gets shitified — although it took not only Musk but also a Trump victory to people finally move away from Twitter. I'm not holding my breath that something like this will hapen with Bluesky soon. Also, there's the possibility of fediverse integration with Bluesky — even threads did it to some extent.

It's just so depressing that things could have been so much better...

In a space of a couple of weeks my number of followers in Bluesky overtook the number on mastodon — starting from about 200 or so.

All academics are there.

You post something there, people react.

Here it's either silence or zealot, humorless bickering.

The result of an engineered, restrictive platform that puts way too many railguards on how people are supposed to interact with one another.

I still have hope in the fediverse, but what a colossal waste this platform has been so far...

@kawie @mpldr @pluralistic

Of course I read the article.

Can't you really understand my argument?

I obviously don't mean that Mastodon is locked in, only that it's a shitty experience.

That's a perfectly valid use of the term "enshitified", and underlies the general problem.

@mpldr @pluralistic The exact same features that keep people away and are driving the mass migration to BlueSky instead of here. This platform has too many restrictions, which makes it more difficult to have meaningful interactions.

For example:

1. The purely sequential timeline means you miss a lot of relevant posts, and it's much harder to keep track of the important conversations.

2. The lack of quotes means you can't link or make references to what others say.

This platform added federation, but unnecessarily removed a lot a features that existed on twitter, instead of improving on them.

Instead of fearing "the algorithm", mastodon should have given the option for users and instances to control the algorithm of their own feed.

Bluesky added the option to "detach" a quote from a post if it turns out it's getting unwanted attention. A simpler, more elegant solution to the (frankly, exaggerated) potential abuse problem, than simply not having quotes at all.

In short, there's less friction there, and here it feels like a pain.

Some hard truths from @pluralistic: https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-11-02-ulysses-pact-tie-yourself-to-a-federated-mast-b2f89bb5b4d8

It misses only one fact: Mastodon was born shitified!

I still believe (maybe naively) that the free software principles are strong and people will eventually unshitiffy it. But this hurdle will cost it a unique moment in history.

@UlrikeHahn @felwert @vbuendiar @ide

I don't remember a single interchange with you that has "worked" or was productive in any way.

In any case, I have given plenty of reasons as to why this platform should be changed, either by the original developers of by others:

1. There's no evidence that the excessively restrictive measures help.
2. There are plenty of examples where the restrictions hinder meaningful interactions.
3. It drives people away, demonstrably.

The idea that everything hinges on my proving that the lack of restrictions are not harmful in any way (i.e. proving a negative) is just something you have invented and are obsessed with.

@vasto @vbuendiar @ide Eventually free software finds a way. But the missed uportunity won't come back.

@UlrikeHahn @felwert @vbuendiar @ide Completely abusurd. Nowhere I claimed or implied they should be *compelled* to do anything. My discourse is anti-authoritatian, if you haven't noticed.

I'm arguing why they *should* do something, not only because it would lead to a better outcome, but it would also be more consistent with their allegded goals and principles.

I'm criticizing, not calling the police.

You're using a double standard: to defend their decisions you evoke the common good, to defend against criticisms you evoke their right to do what they please, regardless of consistency, or what others think. You can't have both ways.

@vasto @vbuendiar @ide The fediverse is a great idea. But mastodon was a mistake.

@vasto @vbuendiar @ide Completely agree. This is, above all, an inspid place. A nanny social network.

@felwert @UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide

I really don't believe you are being honest when you compare quotes with unicorn buttons. Sorry for the precision, but you know I'm right.

Quotes are essentially inline previews of other posts.

There are additional functionalities, like being notified, but they are not essential.

@tillgrallert @felwert @UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide Yes, but the quotes don't display correctly for the vast majority of users.

@felwert @UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide This is such an intellectually dishonest argument. Displaying an inline link is not only natural but is also expected behavior, since every single microblogging platform *except* mastodon supports it. They went out of the way to not implement it.

The fact that the quotes are in the roadmad for years essentially proves my point that they don't have any goood evidence against them (yet, somehow, someone will always jump in the defense of the lack of quotes when you point out it's a bad idea). But it's not a strawman in any way, it's a such a clear deficiency that even the authors of the platform admit it!

@vbuendiar @UlrikeHahn Quotes and timelines have obvious good uses. That's why they were implemented in the first place.

Quotes have been in the roadmap for *years* now, even though they are essentially the most elementary aspect of the web: hyperlinks. They are taking long to implement them because they havent figured out how to make it so contrived that it will be basically useless.

The official app argument is a red herring. I run my own instance with a forked version that actually allows quotes—after all they're trivial to implement. But if I quote a post it will not show correctly for you, since you're using the official version. So it's about what the majority is using.

@UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide You insist on misunderstanding my argument.

Primarily, I'm saying that in the ABSENCE of evidence that supports a constraint on someone's freedom of action, that constraint is not justified.

The burden of proof lies on who wants to impose control.

This argument is mainly moral: power needs to be justified.

Additionally, the proposition that quotes cause harm needs evidence because it's fundamentally an empirical claim. No one explains *why* that should be true, they only claim that it is so. The absence of evidence for an empirical claim means it's not a valid claim. The burden lies on providing evidence for it, not against it. No one has to prove that unicorns don't exist.

@UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide “Here's my scholarly argument why claims do not have to be susbstantiated.” Amazing.

Only on this platform....

@UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide BTW, believing something is in the public good, by itself, means nothing.

Musk believes what he does is for the public good.

Any murderous dictator believes he's acting for the public good.

Proving, arguing coherently, in a princied way, convincing others, etc. That's the meaningful bit.

@UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide In case you haven't noticed, I'm arguing why I disagree with their decision.

To the extent they want to claim their restrictive decisions are in the public good, the burden of proof lies on them, of course.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

@UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide This such a misleading analogy!

Mastodon is intended as a public platform, for the public good, not a personal, private enclave.

You use the same argument as Elon Musk: it's my property and I do what I want.