The last article I read from him was complaining about how the fediverse is flawed because each site “removes” messages that don’t fit into the media format of said site. I.e., pixelfed only displays image posts, peertube only shows long form video, etc. This is bad because…reasons.
Despite the fact that the pixelfed founder has pledged to fix this issue by allowing non-image posts to be displayed, it seems this blogger is doubling down on the idea that there are those who view the fediverse “correctly”, and those who are only in it for “entertainment”, rather than “serious” communication. It’s a pretty baseless and condescending argument overall.
yeah i read that, they argued that not showing all content would be “dishonest” of some social media platforms, and that’s bad.
like, pixelfed only shows content from the fediverse that contains at least 1 image. everything else is just not shown. and that’s “dishonest” because it does not accurately depict everything that the social media account actually posts.
thing is, the fediverse is what we make it, and we can make whatever the fuck we want with it, including filtering posts about whether they contain an image or not. and only showing posts that contain an image. if users want that type of system, it’s possible to implement it.
It’s also a weird argument on its face. They are saying that this technology should be viewed as a communication platform, like e-mail. Ok, tell me where I’m your e-mail you view video content, or memes, or listen to podcasts. Different media calls for different platforms, it’s just a fundamental property of digital communication.
What’s up with him?
The last article I read from him was complaining about how the fediverse is flawed because each site “removes” messages that don’t fit into the media format of said site. I.e., pixelfed only displays image posts, peertube only shows long form video, etc. This is bad because…reasons.
Despite the fact that the pixelfed founder has pledged to fix this issue by allowing non-image posts to be displayed, it seems this blogger is doubling down on the idea that there are those who view the fediverse “correctly”, and those who are only in it for “entertainment”, rather than “serious” communication. It’s a pretty baseless and condescending argument overall.
yeah i read that, they argued that not showing all content would be “dishonest” of some social media platforms, and that’s bad.
like, pixelfed only shows content from the fediverse that contains at least 1 image. everything else is just not shown. and that’s “dishonest” because it does not accurately depict everything that the social media account actually posts.
thing is, the fediverse is what we make it, and we can make whatever the fuck we want with it, including filtering posts about whether they contain an image or not. and only showing posts that contain an image. if users want that type of system, it’s possible to implement it.
It’s also a weird argument on its face. They are saying that this technology should be viewed as a communication platform, like e-mail. Ok, tell me where I’m your e-mail you view video content, or memes, or listen to podcasts. Different media calls for different platforms, it’s just a fundamental property of digital communication.