undefined
@quephird @aeva I don't envy any mods here, they are in a pretty much impossible situation having to balance two opposed concerns.
IRC had the same problem. The networks kept splitting because of disagreements among channel and network operators, and it became common to have an account on each of the major networks because that was the only way you can participate with all your communities.
@quephird @aeva As the post mentions, the big strike against Fedi being a replacement for DA is the discoverability problem, which is exacerbated by moderation actions being applied to entire instances and defederation.
This is the why I think "universal" sites/networks were an aberration, they can only exist if someone has a financial interest in the having disparate communities in continual contact with each other, and we know that's pretty harmful. But the flip side is that strong moderation tools to prevent that sort of thing can then become weapons in an intracommunity disagreement.
@quephird Hmm, I think what analysis like that misses, is that early DA only was possible by the risk tolerance of the late dot com bubble.
It's extremely costly to run a "universal" site like that, which was why hobbyist-run sites before and since have a narrow focus, and often parochial communities.
Cohost in some ways was an attempt to do a "universal" site, but that conflicted with the goals of also having a community space geared towards the founders and their friends, which was based in nostalgia for things like early LiveJournal, tumblr, and DA.
I think the same tension is in play here, we're trying to have in some ways a "universal" network, but most of the nodes are strongly community-based and supported.
Pre-Musk Twitter was headed in the same direction as modern DA or Reddit, all its financial incentives were towards jettisoning their least monetizable communities in favor of their most monetizable ones, hence why it was a fluke of capitalism that universal sites existed in the first place.