[rndmio]

How is it not social media? Looking at joinmastodon.org tells me it is. How are people still having to rediscover the fact that posting something publicly means you lose control of it? If you don't want your posts to be publicised, don't post them publicly.

[JanneVee]

It is a quick comment by me that I didn't spend much effort on. So I'll rephrase it: Mastodon is not "Twitter" and a bunch of "Twitter users" showed up triggering a change in culture of Mastodon to be more like the thing the author opted out of by using Mastodon!

Hope it brings the point across better!

[rndmio]

Ok yeah, I see what you're saying. I'd say maybe they didn't opt of of the things they thought they did. Mastodon is still social media, public things are still public, they opted out of the scale of Twitter but not the rest. They found something that wasn't Twitter and were happy until it became like Twitter, what they really wanted was something that can't become Twitter; like hosting a private Mastodon server.

[Brian_K_White]

They even actually do host their own server, which they could make private any time if they hate to be seen so much.

I'm sympathetic to the crowd of newcomers image they paint, but weakly. As in I agree it's annoying to have some quiet spot you had found get popular. But if you didn't own that spot and it was only quiet by chance, and it was fully public all along, OH WELL.

I do not understand their complaints about consent to have their voluntarily and actively published things be seen and reshared. They asked to be both seen and reshared by publishing publicly on a public instance, whose publicness they even control themselves on top of the controls for any individual post, on a protocol in which other servers redistribute copies of the original to all other servers and users.

Consent for all that resharing was well and truly given, yes including off platform. The only complaint they have is if any of the resharing stripped their name. Just like this blog post being CC-BY 4.0