Mastodon
The project: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon
Mastodon instance affiliated with Lemmy.World: https://mastodon.world/
Discuss the Mastodon platform here. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Which part of it is preachy?
I was hoping to just provide context for the question. I think it's unavoidable that a given implementation/interface provides particular affordances (see https://erinkissane.com/the-affordance-loop - it's a good read). I think half a century of communication theory would agree. So the question is "what affordances do you want your interface to provide?"
I know Mastodon can be forked. It already has, and I hope it will be more. But those forks will have to ask their own version of the question. But mastodon is NOT just a library for others to build on, it's a whole package, which is most often used as-is, with maybe some very minor graphical changes. Those things you suggest are possible, but not best served by an unmodified version of mastodon (and also, other softwares already exist for those that do work better for those applications).
That's more or less the point of the post though. The affordances framework can be applied retrospectively as well as in the design phase. And software grows and evolves over time, so there is the possibility of divergence from the original design, and that could include intentionally heading towards a different affordance set..
Mastodon doesn't have a complete feature set, and I don't think it aims to be a direct clone of twitter (otherwise there wouldn't have been such resistance to retweets). Seems like the perfect opportunity to think about the problem, while it's still growing.
An alternative is to not bother, and just rely on forking to produce software with different affordances. I think that's a perfectly fine strategy. But there's still value in laying out the mission/values and intended affordances, so someone doesn't fork for a feature that would easily fit within mainline Mastodon's mission (of course, merging a fork is possible, but it can be a PITA).
Tbh it really feels like the main mission of Mastodon (just like any other FOSS social platform) is aggressive leftism promotion.
What do you mean by leftist here? Like, can you split it up into some actual values or aims, instead of just a high-level label?
Well I'd say in that case it was a pretty high-level label. Obviously not all left leaning views are the same but many of them are pretty similar in terms of online censorship policy.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong or something, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean.. What aspects of "leftism" are you seeing pushed by mastodon?
Censorship, double standards and lies.
Moderation of hate speech is censorship if the definition of "hate speech" is wrong (and in their case it is).
Double standards on the above mentioned term and some other ones.
Lies about the absence of double standards and wrong definitions.
TL;DR leftism is a corrupted piece of just technically changed rightism filled with duplicity.
Well my opinion on this matter is completely opposite to yours. This does happen from time to time if different people interact with each other.
Also I was personally offended by leftists so uhm I better off just hate them forever tbh.
How is the definition wrong?
(My understanding is that it varies a bit between servers)
How is the definition wrong?
Their definition is "every opinion different to ours" which in my understanding is ridiculous.
(My understanding is that it varies a bit between servers)
That's true but overall similar views have similar issues.
Their definition is “every opinion different to ours” which in my understanding is ridiculous.
That seems like some kind of nonsense you've cooked up in your head... I see people arguing about things on mastodon every day.
Nonsense cannot be based on facts, dear internet user, and I have those (in the form of personal experience and witnesses). Also the issues only arise when a member of the side of the political spectrum in question faces a different opinion on a topic that is important to them specifically (that is a part of the double standards issue). If it's not something that can trigger them, there will be little to no issues (unless the person decides to harass the one with the opposite opinion).
What differentiates leftists from others is the inability to avoid drama and even illegal actions in such cases (though far right movements might have this issue too).
All of this makes the lies part obvious - they say they support freedom and inclusivity while openly doing the opposite. Therefore they are fascists in disguise.
I agree that there are no "pure" people. I was mainly talking about ones who oppress religion and opposing opinions (that are not even nazi). Also nice to see some civil-ish discussion for once.
When the Overton Window is as far to the right as it currently is, any platform that doesn't want to be in bed with the far-right will seem that way.
Call me when actual Communism is a significant player, rather than just people talking about radical ideas such as human rights or empathy.