[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.