If I was one of your readers, I’d much rather read on your self-hosted blog (bonus points if there’s RSS)… But I’m not. Since I’m neither a reader, nor the one who defines what fun means to you, I’m not sure my—and other commenters’—words should have too much bearing in your decision.

I say, do what makes you (and your readers) happiest. Even if medium is by some measure bad, I’d guess it’s “only” about as bad as every other closed-up commercial option—I think they all suck. Look into what you actually care about, though, e.g. privacy, then make your own call.

For what it’s worth, I agree with people saying medium is almost inexplicably annoying. I consider myself a patient person most of the time, yet nothing kills my interest in an article faster than seeing websites like medium full of dark-patterned cookie banners and popups and newsletters and signups on the other side of a link.

But maybe we’re simply the wrong crowd to ask.

Were the community rules copied straight out of Reddit or something? 3 and 9 are a bit funny.

You’re right, regarding Mastodon. I won’t edit my other comment, though, both to preserve the original chain of thought and because that brings up another discussion.

To quote the EFF:

We feel that the intended usage of the feature will not determine people’s expectation of privacy while using it.

Offering people a feature with preexisting expectations, similar to other things that fulfill those expectations, then telling people “We know it looks like a duck but don’t expect it to quack!”

…It begs the question: was the feature really a good idea?

And it’s also damming for private messaging on mastodon.

I once read vague complaints about it being a rushed implementation. While I won’t trust those without evidence, I for sure wouldn’t trust mastodon with my PMs. At least, not until how this was allowed to happen is figured out and fixed if necessary.

P.S. I’m still not sure I believe in PMs in the fediverse. If I need to share something and care about keeping it private, I’d rather move the conversation elsewhere.

That’s funny, same thing here. I’m very thankful to the stranger on a forum who suggested “blasting the motherboard with a blow-dryer.” Now sometimes I joke that my PC is diesel-powered.

That’s a shame, thank you for the input. I guess I could try Bluesky instead.

Not sure how up to date you are on Bluesky’s situation, but it might interest you to know they’ve recently started doing early-access federation. It’s… not ideal (opinion), but it’s moving along (fact).

While I agree with you, I just want to mention that not necessarily all fediverse users have a formed opinion (at least at first) about open platforms, sharing content with other websites, and so on.

Some people just suffered from platforms like ex-Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, etc. enshittifying, heard that other victims were trying to build something better, and (generously, might I add) decided to give it a chance.

That doesn’t excuse any horrible behavior they might’ve engaged in. But remember that just because someone is surprised and reacts negatively at how their content is handled on the fediverse, that doesn’t mean they were in the wrong to join.

Folks can jump into things without fully understanding them, and sometimes it’s nice to, circumstances allowing, take that as an opportunity to inform, rather than question “Why are you even here?”

There’s quite a bit to unpack in this article, even if some of it is only mentioned.

It’s a saddening read. There are issues with Fediverse culture and surrounding technical discussion at wide, but also with interactions between law and new technologies like ActivityPub—and that’s on top of the law, on it’s own, already doing a horrible job way too often, in my opinion. None of this is news, but it always hurts a little to be reminded so.

I’ve been thinking about trying to get into mastodon, to form my own opinion on several topics it intersects with. I’m a little uncomfortable with how popular it is compared to other fediverse software, considering how poorly they seem to integrate. I hoped some time on mastodon would dispell this feeling, or at least give me insights I could work with. To be honest, every day it gets a little harder to justify that idea.

But that’s just a personal thing. Maybe I’m simply not fit for micro-blogging. Really, I don’t care which software is the most popular, I literally just wish they’d integrate better. Despite my misgivings, I’m grateful for the positive impact mastodon has made in the social/tech circles, changing how many people see social media and their relationship with it.

The us-versus-them mentality is unreal. The only valid them, to me, is proprietary closed platforms. We should strive for more decentralized networks that shift control over user experience back to its users, because we need and deserve safer, healthier social networks. This is not it. I can only hope culture will improve, because I’m not sure how you’d tackle a problem on this scale.

And if mastodon can’t fix itself? Screw it, and keep an eye on what comes next.

It’s not a competition, we’re in a team effort to build a part of the internet that can resist enshittification inevitable in closed platforms; so long as the platform is open, I’ll keep my mind open as well. If my lemmy instance decides to migrate to Sublinks, that’s fine. Worst case, I’ll migrate elsewhere. Assuming Bluesky turns out OK as a company, even atproto taking the lead over ActivityPub might be fine. Hell, some of the original AP creators are still experimenting with new ideas.

I fully agree with the point that too many people act like the fediverse, or their specific brand of it, is more open-minded and kinder than what they’re trying to replace. I hope it’s possible to make that true, one day.

P.S. Sorry, brevity is the soul of wit, and I’m an idiot. This ended up as an outlet for issues that have been frustrating me for a while.

I will attempt an oddly serious answer, unlike my previous comment, since I feel this deserves one.

Sort of, and technically correct. Both the suicidal and the oil baron have no reason to care what happens after they’re dead. But I don’t know if that’s relevant here.

Powerful people ruining the world do so because of incentives and… because they can. The only thing that will stop them and those that come after is meaningful societal change. Convincing people to participate in bringing about this change is important too, make no mistake, but it’s because of what they can achieve united. It’s voting, protesting, and building a world where the powerful can’t screw over the world and everyone in it.

Hoping a change in culture alone will save the world is useless, because the rich and powerful will not follow that new culture. There’s no trickle-up morals, and telling suicidal people they should be mindful of how they die (if serious) is barking up the wrong tree. It won’t stop the oil baron from continuing to pollute more than everyone in this thread combined, nor will it make a meaningful difference even should the person follow your advice, because it’s a drop in the bucket—and maybe the last one they’ll ever make.

Trying to put it shortly, my point is that mentality is only the start. The world is broken (e.g. climate change is a thing), not just because of mentality, but because those high above do all in their power to stay there and shape the world in ways that suit them. Changing people’s mentality is good, but is “use hydrogen instead of helium” really the last thing a suicidal person should have to hear from you?

Of course, this is a meme community in the end, so apologies if this comment was unnecessary because no one is seriously saying that. But anyone who thinks so should also be able to read my previous comment in its intended humor as well.

Respectfully, the dead need not care about loss of non-renewable resources.