[ahelwer]

Some people are fundamentally product-brained and fail to metabolize the concept of federated social media. That's fine, it's better without them.

> You can say "oh what a tragedy", but I'm easily in the top 1% of users on reddit with nonzero karma by either post/comment karma/number of comments/amount of text typed; so people like me are what keeps a platform alive.

I'm sorry but I audibly laughed when I read this.

Mastodon is where you go to hang out with friends, colleagues, and fellow hobbyists. You go there to have a good time and learn from others. People obsessed with building their personal brand or audience or upvote score embody much of what people hate about other forms of social media. The platform is much improved without them.

[romwell]

>People obsessed with building their personal brand or audience or upvote score embody

Are you projecting? None of that is in what I said; I just provided an easy metric.

How about, people thank me for what I write.

And it's not "product-brained" to say that an author writes to be read, a music maker wants to be heard, and an educator wants to reach as many people as could benefit from it.

>You go there to have a good time and learn from others.

Which goes to show, you need others to be there.

And the others you learn from matter.

>Some people are fundamentally product-brained and fail to metabolize the concept of federated social media. That's fine, it's better without them.

Look, if "metabolizing concepts" of federated social is a requirement for a social network, but understanding concerns of others (evidently) is not, then everyone else is better without the social network of such people too.

[ahelwer]

You fundamentally approach social networks with a producer/consumer mindset. Which is great, for some social networks. Except consuming content isn't very social. People aren't friends with a performer on stage (I believe this relationship is derogatorily called "parasocial"). I like social networks that involve people I can viably interact with in a friendly way, not in a way that constantly requires them to perform for their audience. See popular twitter accounts complaining about reply guys or people trying to riff with them generally. There are plenty of these friendly interactions on mastodon, because you can literally have them with everybody! The platform doesn't suffer because self-styled creators don't use it!

> but understanding concerns of others (evidently) is not

Your concerns can be understood without being catered to. Not everything has to be fit for your purposes. The world keeps turning without your permission.

Look fundamentally this argument is pointless. If you like mastodon then use it; lots of people do, certainly enough to make it worthwhile, and arguing about whether it will fail is a pointless exercise in trying to predict the future. Whining about how it doesn't meet your standards doesn't matter. It isn't a product that a company loses out on profit by failing to sell to you. From our brief interaction here I can tell you the platform really isn't greatly diminished by your lack of presence.

[romwell]

     Arguing about whether [Mastodon] will fail is a pointless exercise in trying to predict the future.

Well, that's exactly what we're doing here. That's the point of the article, and this discussion.

On that note:

    *Some people* are fundamentally product-brained and fail to metabolize the concept of federated social media. *That's fine, it's better without them.*

    *You* fundamentally approach social networks with a producer/consumer mindset.[...] *The platform doesn't suffer because self-styled creators don't use it!*

    *People* obsessed with building their personal brand or audience or upvote score embody much of what people hate about other forms of social media. *The platform is much improved without them.*

    *Whining* about how it doesn't meet your standards *doesn't matter*. From our brief interaction here *I can tell you the platform really isn't greatly diminished by your lack of presence.*

In two comments, you managed to say 4 times that the platform would be better off without someone like me (where, each time, you are assuming something about me as if it were a fact). What gives?

    I like social networks that involve people I can viably interact with in a friendly way

Was that an example of it?

    Your concerns can be understood without being catered to. [...] *The world keeps turning without your permission.*

Pardon me, but here's how it looks on my end:

>Me: I think the platform would have been better for everyone if your identity on the platform weren't tied to the instance you sign up with by design.

>You: your whining doesn't matter, and the platform is better off without you

Is that how you think conversations should go? Genuinely curious at this point.