@ZachWeinersmith Yes. And so does Cory @pluralistic Their closed communication system is what allows them to control what you see, including the crap. Cory explains this in The Internet Con.
1/🧵
I separate the communication layer from the moderation layer. At the communications layer I want to be able to receive posts from friends on Facebook. Mostly to allow them and I to move off Facebook ex-Twitter, et.al.
2/🧵
At the moderation/publishing layer they can go rot in hell. I have no desire to see what Facebook thinks I might be interested in. I would love to be able to hire and fire editors and publishers to find cool stuff. But they can’t own the communications pipe. We didn’t let Time own the Post Office did we.
3/3
@ZachWeinersmith Very much in favour. What gets exported and imported would depend on platform. Microblogging platforms might export or import follow lists, block/mute lists, aggregated posts, uploaded media. Facebook might do follow lists, social graph, posts and media, etc...
@ZachWeinersmith absolutely in favor. It's interesting that you have trouble imagining it in practice because Mastodon is part of the Fediverse, a network of interoperable platforms. You can like, comment and share PeerTube videos or PixelFed photos from Mastodon, or post and reply to Lemmy threads, and so on
@ZachWeinersmith not really a fan of the idea tbh. I think it's desirable for general-purpose social media to be interoperable, but there are a lot of small forums and such that I think benefit from being their own little fiefdoms
I suppose it depends on what's meant by "social media" though. If you were somehow able to limit that to just the big players then maybe
Add comment