This is what I don't get about social media censorship. I can understand complying with legal demands, even those from countries with corrupt or tyrannical governments - it's either that, or get blocked, and one could argue it is not up to a corporation to decide when a legal request is legitimate or not.
But why, why hide the censorship itself, and the reasons for it? Why not put a big red "This user blocked due to legal request from country X", or "because or moderators determined the user to be abusive" or "due to legal takedown request from company X"? Why is it always no reason given, just a passive-voice "user has been blocked", with no hint as to by who or why. Or worse, just a "user/video does not exist".
This is just the cost of doing business as a social media company now. Either you bow to the whims of local government or you get replaced by someone who does. Pick your battles wisely.
And that‘s why I don’t understand that people switch from the one centralized company owned by a billionaire they don’t like to another company owned by a multimillionaire they dislike not yet instead to decentralized Mastodon.
I don't understand why people haven't figured out that algorithmic social media is a terrible thing by design, and that it should be avoided. Twitter, IG, FB, all of it is pure poison and the underlying problem isn't who owns it.
It doesn't need to be part of our lives, and in fact we'd be better off without it. Opt out.
Presumably because they see these same critics use platforms like Hacker News and Reddit while denigrating "the algorithm" and assume nobody is all that serious about quitting social media.
This is what I don't get about social media censorship. I can understand complying with legal demands, even those from countries with corrupt or tyrannical governments - it's either that, or get blocked, and one could argue it is not up to a corporation to decide when a legal request is legitimate or not.
But why, why hide the censorship itself, and the reasons for it? Why not put a big red "This user blocked due to legal request from country X", or "because or moderators determined the user to be abusive" or "due to legal takedown request from company X"? Why is it always no reason given, just a passive-voice "user has been blocked", with no hint as to by who or why. Or worse, just a "user/video does not exist".
This is just the cost of doing business as a social media company now. Either you bow to the whims of local government or you get replaced by someone who does. Pick your battles wisely.
And that‘s why I don’t understand that people switch from the one centralized company owned by a billionaire they don’t like to another company owned by a multimillionaire they dislike not yet instead to decentralized Mastodon.
>instead to decentralized Mastodon
Why do you think Mastodon is immune to this? Turkey can just as easily block 1000 domains, there is no much difference to blocking one.
I don't understand why people haven't figured out that algorithmic social media is a terrible thing by design, and that it should be avoided. Twitter, IG, FB, all of it is pure poison and the underlying problem isn't who owns it.
It doesn't need to be part of our lives, and in fact we'd be better off without it. Opt out.
Presumably because they see these same critics use platforms like Hacker News and Reddit while denigrating "the algorithm" and assume nobody is all that serious about quitting social media.
Reddit is pure poison, Hacker News is pretty much the furthest thing from addictive, flashy, "engagement at all costs" as you can get.
Besides... https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/259/257/342...
If that's really all you're saying then I'd encourage you to dig a bit deeper for something worth saying.
I didn’t even bother with bluesky. Sooner or later it’s gonna become another twitter.