cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/7992691
There are some straightforward opportunities for short-term safety improvements, but this is only the start of what’s needed to change the dynamic more completely.
This is a draft, so feedback welcome!
From previous interactions with the author, I am convinced he is not really interested in the growth of the fediverse and is more than willing to sacrifice anything if it keeps it small and on the fringes. As much as I try to steelman his arguments, I can not find a good reasoning. At best, it is just a reactionary attempt to keep the fediverse exclusive to some minority. At worst, it becomes a way to submit everyone into a ESG-compliance racket. “Nice instance you have over there, it would be a shame if it was marked as the home of nazis…”
Absolutely, they are gatekeeping. They think the Fediverse should be exclusive to minorities and geeks but that was never the goal.
No, as the article says at the very beginning, it’s that I think a big reason that fediverse isn’t growing is its failure to deal with safety.
This is the type of argument that makes you less credible, because even if I take what you are saying at face value it shows how all your logic is biased. If “failure to deal with safety” was such a big impediment for mass adoption, how have come the Big Tech alternative still attract billions of users?