That’s historical and can be traced back to how it was formed: some of the people were coming from the instances perspective, where a bunoh of people congregate and network, some from the individual website perspective where you can do absolutely anything and everything you want, you’re home after all. So it landed somewhere in the middle: some very basic use cases were laid out, every platform did whatever they wanted and tried to fit the basic use cases in. Now we have independent platforms doing what they want and if we’re nice we can, maybe, talk with others.

It’s a sad state but some platforms, like emissary and bonfire, are trying to go beyond and offer the possibility for anyone to build their own interface on top. One should also defocus from mastodon and look closer at the friendica family of software which have always looked at fulfilling many usecases, so compability can be better than others

Capitalist propaganda is rampant on the fediverse. We need to discuss ways to combat this. Most big instances -generalist, tech or something are wholly controlled by bourgeois people who would rather uphold state violence than democracy. What do you think?

Your analysis is too light. The state isn’t some magical benevolent entity which is somehow “on the wrong path”. The state is an instrument of domination driven by the dominating class: the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is against everything you cited. It will not slowly act against its own interest, willingly lose power and dominance. It will always fight for, at the minimum, keeping power.

That is why historically the only way to have changes that contradict the dominating entity’s interest is for the dominated entity to band together. It’s the only way anything ever changes: the balance of forces moves in the interest of the dominated. Women didn’t earn the right to vote because men were nice, but because women fought for it. Social progress never happens because the bourgeoisie is nice (that’s a very nice propaganda trick) but because the bourgeoisie has to compromise.

Waiting/wishing/hoping for the state to be nice, which is what asking for ubi is, and the “revolution without violence” the socdem has pushed about, never works. As long as the people who are legitimate are dominated, it will not happen.

Let’s stop dreaming in idealistic what-ifs and act in materialist actions. The material conditions define our existence. Let’s set our material conditions of existence, without asking nicely, and the balance of power will force the dominating power to compromise.

Be the change you want to see. You want the right kind of content to magically come to you, how do you think this content exists in the first place

Merci pour l’accueil ! Je lurkais depuis un moment déjà et j’ai un poil participé avec mon compte microblogging mais ça fait un bail :)

Salut ! Je me crée enfin un compte sur le forumverse pour profiter pleinement de sa puissance :)

I’ve been thinking about that a lot and plan to build something I’m more interested in:

• powerless instances where all you can do is create accounts and store stuff to be served but every logic and integrity is done by clients
• anonymous account creation so that everyone can participate -> freedom of speech …
• follow-based interaction: if I don’t follow you, you cannot send me anything -> … not freedom of reach
• because instances are powerless they do not define community anymore. Communities are good old accounts, created, managed and animated by users directly
• because clients have all the power, they are the primary storage source
• Communities are the primary dissemination vector. If I don’t follow you but we’re both part of the same community and you post something to that community, I’ll see it
• when I block someone, that block can be propagated to others so they can automatically block that same account. This works for communities as well.

Hopefully a design like this should empower users and communities by letting them focus on the social aspect of building the group, nurturing it, instead of the technical parts that constrain users into artificial uses