deleted by creator
Which part of it is preachy?
I was hoping to just provide context for the question. I think it’s unavoidable that a given implementation/interface provides particular affordances (see https://erinkissane.com/the-affordance-loop - it’s a good read). I think half a century of communication theory would agree. So the question is “what affordances do you want your interface to provide?”
I know Mastodon can be forked. It already has, and I hope it will be more. But those forks will have to ask their own version of the question. But mastodon is NOT just a library for others to build on, it’s a whole package, which is most often used as-is, with maybe some very minor graphical changes. Those things you suggest are possible, but not best served by an unmodified version of mastodon (and also, other softwares already exist for those that do work better for those applications).
deleted by creator
That’s more or less the point of the post though. The affordances framework can be applied retrospectively as well as in the design phase. And software grows and evolves over time, so there is the possibility of divergence from the original design, and that could include intentionally heading towards a different affordance set…
Mastodon doesn’t have a complete feature set, and I don’t think it aims to be a direct clone of twitter (otherwise there wouldn’t have been such resistance to retweets). Seems like the perfect opportunity to think about the problem, while it’s still growing.
An alternative is to not bother, and just rely on forking to produce software with different affordances. I think that’s a perfectly fine strategy. But there’s still value in laying out the mission/values and intended affordances, so someone doesn’t fork for a feature that would easily fit within mainline Mastodon’s mission (of course, merging a fork is possible, but it can be a PITA).
Tbh it really feels like the main mission of Mastodon (just like any other FOSS social platform) is aggressive leftism promotion.
When the Overton Window is as far to the right as it currently is, any platform that doesn’t want to be in bed with the far-right will seem that way.
Call me when actual Communism is a significant player, rather than just people talking about radical ideas such as human rights or empathy.
What do you mean by leftist here? Like, can you split it up into some actual values or aims, instead of just a high-level label?
Well I’d say in that case it was a pretty high-level label. Obviously not all left leaning views are the same but many of them are pretty similar in terms of online censorship policy.
I’m not trying to prove you wrong or something, I’m just trying to figure out what you mean… What aspects of “leftism” are you seeing pushed by mastodon?
Censorship, double standards and lies.
Moderation of hate speech is censorship if the definition of “hate speech” is wrong (and in their case it is).
Double standards on the above mentioned term and some other ones.
Lies about the absence of double standards and wrong definitions.
TL;DR leftism is a corrupted piece of just technically changed rightism filled with duplicity.
How is the definition wrong?
(My understanding is that it varies a bit between servers)
deleted by creator
