- Use distributed, federated services like Lemmy, mastodon etc.
- Support the hosts with our own funds.
- Moderate our own communities.
The second point is the most important. Reddit happened because they are a corporate entity seeking profit. Let’s own our social media platforms by actively contributing funds to them.
Unsure how distributed federated services prevents the reddit downfall, aside from corporate greed. Which can also be solved through legally binding agreements/foundation-controlled companies. Among many other solutions that can avoid funding, stability, and consistency issued federated services have and will continue to have.
It’s all a tradeoff. To tradeoff corporate greed you now have community fragmentation and fragility risks as any instance can be taken down whenever, and any unhappy user that created communities can solely kill them off (As stated by some users threatening to do so in another thread).
What you should be talking about is how do you mitigate these tradeoffs. What should others do to make the fediverse more successful? If you want it to be successful than talking about these hard problems in a semi-flenal way is required.
#2 sounds good to say, but barely works in practice when you’re talking about infrastructure costs in the tens of millions of $ per year for something at scale…
Essentially saying nice things that don’t effectively translate into reality doesn’t solve problems. It just perpetuates a lack of critical thinking.
OK good point but think about your tone dude! You’re coming across like you think we are stupid and I’ll offer the benefit of the doubt that you don’t intend that side effect.
deleted by creator
My tone is such that it addresses the nativity of posts like this. Especially when said nativity pushed for potentially counterproductive or harmful mindsets that prevent real solutions from being discovered.
Nativity must be addressed if hard problems are to be solved. It’s a baseline.
A small slice of users are going to understand broader technological, community, funding, and survivability nuances. As such these should be explained so we’re not simply hand waving necessary complexity away. Encouraging deeper discussion from others who would otherwise pass posts like these up because of the low quality.
It’s the difference between talking about niceties, vs actually working towards solutions. These are hard problems, and should be recognized as hard otherwise they go unsolved.
The more readers know about the rest of the iceberg the better. The more knowledgeable folks you attract to a discussion by encouraging critical thinking the better.
I don’t disagree with your analysis. I just think your tone is counter-productive. Good luck getting your message across.