Post
@ophiocephalic @chewie What this demonstrates is what the original Titter really was before Melon Husk bought it. A propoganda channel for neo-liberal corporate elites, which mostly filtered out perspectives that weren't getting with the program (radical left and green, as well as anti-corporate conservative). Husk didn't really change it's character, just inverted it.
But the neo-liberals pine for the good old days, so that's why there's an audience for neo-Titter platforms like BS and W.
Me:
> Husk didn't really change it's character, just inverted it
Just to clarify what I meant by this, Melon Husk switched the platform-formerly-known-as-Titter to the other side in the Culture Wars. Giving it a neo-conservative bias - with pseudo-libertarian frosting for the edgelords - in place of the old neo-liberal bias.
But it remains the same channel for military-industrial and state-corporate propaganda it always was. Anti-corporate sentiments still Shadowbanned.
@strypey
Interesting analysis of early Twitter. This may be an unpopular take but I think we should all be thinking twice before advocating to attract more of the political elite to the fediverse. It won't change the nature of their politics, but it will change the fedi, and not for the better
@ophiocephalic @strypey @chewie
Often overlooked:
Politicians already enjoy vastly more popularity due to traditional media coverage and other exposure, so they bring a lot of overweight to the table, inevitably shaping the discourse. Algorithms would merely emphasisze that, but it's a given already.
I mean - just check their usual follower count. It's not even remotely fair!
(1/3)
@ophiocephalic
> I think we should all be thinking twice before advocating to attract more of the political elite to the fediverse
Fair point. But I guess what I was pointing out is that the network structure of the verse doesn't give them what they want. Particularly the ability to go viral by having their reputation launderers play poker with The Algorithms, that's never going to be a thing here.
(2/3)
Politicians will come when the population gets big enough. For the same reasons flies are attracted to rotten meat. But I agree they're not the people we need to actively invite in.
Except for the more progressive ones that is. Who actually understand the potential of the fediverse as a venue for participatory democracy. I'd really like to see people like Chloe Swarbrick, Zack Polanski, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Teanau Tuiono, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, and Ro Khanna getting active here.
(3/3)
I'm really into a neighborhood-based approach to both fediverse service hosting and population growth;
https://tv.lumbung.space/w/aebd157e-ad49-4ce6-b761-bd06fda6962d
Or a workplace-based approach, where unions set up a small service, with its own domain name, for each workplace where they have members. Stuff like that. Growing at the edges.
@ophiocephalic @strypey also, still waiting for the "launch" in March.... their homepage is just a pilot sign up form still...
@ophiocephalic @strypey also, still waiting for the "launch" in March.... their homepage is just a pilot sign up form still...
@ophiocephalic @strypey let's hope so 😄
@ophiocephalic @strypey true. Maybe not, but it will be easy to block them here if needed :)
@ophiocephalic @chewie
BTW this article is slop;
"Zeiter is a Swiss privacy expert with a long history of working in tech. According to her LinkedIn profile, she spent over a decade at eBay, an American e-commerce company, where she oversaw data protection and artificial intelligence (AI).
She earned her PhD in law at the University of Hamburg and later studied at Stanford University."
I bet a Trained MOLE has mashed together the CVs of 2 people with the same name.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
