Show Navigation
Notices by :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site), page 150
-
@u there's always room for improvement. nothing is ever done.
-
i look forward to the lack of response i usually get from White American Mastodon Users Who Think Pleroma Is Problematic when i describe in detail why their thinking is broken
-
@witchy @anna
ah, let me stop you right there. you have said so, by proxy.
you did so by bringing in your "pleroma friends" to the conversation.
you say that they are bullied by your peers for talking to them, and so you feel the need to "defend" them.
by doing so, you imply that Pleroma is defective and that individual users are punished for using Pleroma.
this is not the case. some Pleroma users encounter Mastodon-using concern trolls who harass them. maybe this happens in your mentions, maybe it doesn't, I don't know what is in your mentions.
but what I do know is this: those Pleroma users are not inconvenienced by this harassment from concern trolls because we just block those people, much like how Mastodon users deal with their own trolling problems.
and so you are giving power to the concern trolls, not the alleged victims of the concern trolling.
and so, by proxy, you are using the existence of concern trolls from your own tribe (Mastodon users) to lend credence to the argument that Pleroma is morally defective.
i hate pulling the race card here, but i believe it may be useful: i'm not a white american, and so i see things differently than white americans do. my people have been shit on, consistently by white people. i have been called a "drunk indian" so many times that it does not even phase me anymore. my point here is that i have a perspective that you do not, and when i see *my* community given this treatment, it looks a lot more like marginalization to me than it does to you.
anyway, hopefully you understand where i am coming from now, and why the "pleroma reputation" argument does not matter to me -- the "pleroma reputation" argument requires me to care what white americans (because y'all are the ones with the Opinion) think about Pleroma. that requires me to care what white americans think about anything i am involved in.
what i care about is if pleroma users are happy and able to have full control over their experience. if they are happy, i am doing my job well. but that does not mean i have any reason to care about what others think, especially not the "woke" white american mastodon clique.
-
@witchy @anna
well, i am sorry that you have struggled with an eating disorder, but that doesn't change:
- the fact that the CW system is entirely broken
- encouraging others to chastize people for not opting into it is even more broken
which was the original point i was making.
-
@witchy @anna
lol, you have the entire problem backwards.
the problem isn't that pleroma has anything to prove to anyone. the problem is that you are enabling the mastodon concern trolls by legitimizing their complaints.
and so you approach this conversation from a position of perceived moral superiority, because you are one of *them*, not one of *us*, and so you are in fact talking down to us from this position you have perceived.
-
@tindall it's doable today
-
@witchy @anna @one
well, in honesty, i don't really give a flying fuck if you use the software or not. but if you're going to hit me with something catty, i'm going to be catty right back. i'm not pretending to be a corporation like big elephant
-
@witchy @anna @one
I also certainly think this conversation contributes to why I do not give two flying fucks what you think about Pleroma. Quite frankly, I am *elated* that you do not use the software.
-
keep in mind that mastodon's abuse of the `as:summary` field for content warnings was basically caused by
- Gargron thinking CWs are stupid
- Gargron implementing an entirely halfassed CW system and not implementing ontological tags with user-configurable filters
I should also note that the original Mastodon CW system that was requested would have worked using ontological tags, and the use of ontological tags are recommended by ActivityStreams specification
-
@witchy @anna @one
*shrug* if you wish to disagree with my posts, it's certainly fine, but that's not "holding me accountable"
-
@witchy @anna @one
that was me being grouchy. i'm allowed to be grouchy.
-
@witchy @anna @one
that way, people can tag their posts with abandon and it does not introduce friction for people who do not want it.
the reason why people don't use the CW system for tagging is because using the CW system introduces friction.
-
@witchy @anna @one
as i expressed elsewhere in the thread, they shouldn't have to. instead, what we need to do is replace the CW system, which has become defacto ontological tagging, with real ontological tagging.
-
@gaditb
there's a few ways to solve this, the main one being standardization of a tag ontology that clients can leverage. clients could automatically tag posts based on detected keywords in the ontology.
-
@Oz @anna
basically, yes, ontological tagging does not necessarily reduce friction on the authoring side (it CAN be reduced with some tricks like I said), but it makes the friction worthwhile, because you get improved discovery and curation.
the CW system does not make the authoring friction worthwhile because it benefits the few at the expense of the many.
or put differently: the CW system is being misused for ontological tagging, and in the absence of real ontological tagging, people are encouraging this ("please CW your _________ posts")
-
@Oz @anna
not to mention that ontological tagging also helps with curating what you actually *receive* from a user.
for example, if someone posts a lot of food pics, and you like food pics, you can subscribe to just their food pics.
in general, ontological tagging solves a lot of problems the fediverse has.
-
@Oz @anna
it's not, because part of the answer is to make the client smarter. part of *that* is pre-training the client to automatically suggest tags based on what you're writing, part of that is also configurable default tags that you start off with.
also, ontological tagging helps with post discovery too. so not only do you get real filtering, but you also get real discovery too.
-
@gaditb there's nothing blocking implementation of ontological tagging in Glitch today, but people will not use it as long as Mastodon does not have it and remains the dominant player.
-
@gaditb i'm being a little facetious, but if Mastodon did not have 73% market share, then Gargron would not have the power to unilaterally dictate halfassed solutions which punish users.
the fediverse would be much healthier innovation wise if the Mastodon user share were split in half, with half going to Glitch or Florence.
then we could actually have real solutions and we wouldn't have "please CW your _________ posts" which just frustrate everyone involved
-
@gaditb
yes.
1. make Mastodon extinct today: encourage your admins to switch to Glitch
2. we implement the same ontological tagging support in Glitch
3. the fediverse lives in a CW-less world where people choose what should be treated as CW on their own terms.
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the