The author invented and then dashed against the rocks a few existing fediverse platforms in the course of a couple paragraphs.
These things already exist and struggle exactly because people comfortable with the walled garden approach forgot what FB was like in 2006 when you only knew 15 people on there. The lack of critical mass of your personal contacts outside of the walls is exactly how FB and IG keep you from venturing outside the walls.
Friendica is one of several fediverse platforms the author basically describes. You can even self-host an instance for yourself and friends/family.
And you may say:
> I tried Mastodon once, which is not immediately intuitive, and the apps aren't perfect. Plus, the wikipedia article describes something that isn't perfect, so I shouldn't bother.
Perfect. IMO, the minuscule friction to enter is the benefit. The walled gardens exist and hold people in such high numbers exactly because they've reduced the friction to enter and increased it to leave. The definition of a trap, yes?
from the article:
> Meta basically turned Instagram and Facebook from 'connecting with friends' into 'doom-scrolling random content'. Even Pinterest is starting to look like TikTok! They followed user engagement, but not the underlying preferences of their users. I posit that any for-profit social media will eventually degrade into recommendation media over time.
So no, the problem isn't high numbers with friction to leave. The problem is that the sites' incentives are different than the users. Facebook had high numbers and a lot of lock-in and was a much better product before they decided to basically stop showing me any content from my friends that isn't controversial. Twitter has high numbers and a lot of lock-in but it's better there because I can still get a linear timeline of tweets from the people I follow.
Do any of those networks limit the number of posts you can make a day?
Do they limit forwarding? Or give users an option not to be shown forwarded messages?
For me, unlimited posts (or rather, minimal friction in posting), and blind forwarding are what destroy social media. If you can make only 3 public/group posts a day, chances are lower they will be crap.
I'm on Mastodon. It's only very mildly nice. The reality is that it still suffers from all of this. I still have to cut off connections because of the guy who's always ranting about some politician/political party.
Increase the friction for people who want to rant!
> I still have to cut off connections because of the guy who's always ranting about some politician/political party.
What a bizarre complaint. Running into people you disagree with is part of the human experience of participating in society.
Mastodon has great self-moderation options. You can mute a person on a timer or permanently, optionally blocking their messages and replies to you and/or their public posts. You can also use any number of word filters to hide posts behind a warning or silently remove them from your timeline.
But really, this is how socialization works. You meet someone, talk to them for a while, eventually decide if you do or don't like them. I don't really get how you can twist this into a critique of social media. It's just how humans are.
> I'm on Mastodon. It's only very mildly nice. The reality is that it still suffers from all of this.
Most of it, at least - it does give the option to not be shown forwarded messages. There's controls on the home timeline to not show boosts, quotes, and/or replies.
> And you may say:
> > I tried Mastodon once, which is not immediately intuitive, and the apps aren't perfect. Plus, the wikipedia article describes something that isn't perfect, so I shouldn't bother.
You use a quote angle bracket, indicating that it is a quote. It is not a quote, it's a straw man.
Nobody is saying "this isn't perfect, I won't use it." People are saying "I can't figure this out, I guess I won't use it."