In a way, the cultural imperative to militantly hall-monitor anything outside a particular bubble is part of the appeal of Mastodon and its multi-instance federated structure. Individual instances can be highly culturally-specific and have their own social codes and expectations, including varied expectations of what should (and need not) be CWed. And that’s fine! In fact, it’s a selling point of the system. Instances can also block other instances (or choose not to federate at all) if the community finds other groups problematic. (See the #fediblock tag, for example, for multi-instance approaches to this.)
If this seems overly aggressive, the culture at large – and the application – encourage users to make accounts across multiple instances. This lets you participate in cultures that value tight cultural controls while opening yourself up to more of the federated experience – in a way that you as the user can control.
One thing people forget about mastodon is, yes, it does have plenty of instances that are formed by right wing assholes exited from twitter. BUT, it also and primarily was and is used by marginalized communities that asked for safety controls on twitter and were told to pound sand. Those marginalized communities, I’d argue, far outpace the right wing assholes (and have them fediblocked anyway so their safety considerations are being met.) Because of that, the CW ing is part of the safety set up that these communities have decided upon and people coming into mastodon need to realize and respect that. Just because twitter wouldn’t protect people doesn’t mean these instances won’t.
If you dig further into Patricia Aas’ thread, you find these exchanges.
These seem to support the author’s point about Mastodon user culture.
The same author also has a thread on FediBlock.
But, the answer seems obvious to me.
She still wrote a guide recommending people sign up with Vivaldi’s Mastodon instance (the author is a former employee). …yeah, no, none for me at this time.
Back on topic, Elon’s considering forced obsolescence.
I can’t say I’m surprised by this, but of all features on a car to not necessitate running through the computer controls, this seems like the obvious choice. The circuit needs to be like: power source, microswitch, LED controller, ground. There is ZERO need for the computer to manage this behavior (*).
(* You do probably want the car to know if a brake light is out, but that would be pretty easily solved with some sort of status pin on the LED controller. And if you really need to reprogram your brake light behavior on the fly with an over-the-air update (and do you? do you really?) that could presumably done via a dedicated I/O on the controller as well. But the computer has no business negotiating brake light behavior during regular operation.)
“Vox Populi?” Is that really all it takes? I’m tempted to join Twitter just to start a poll that asks, “What should Elon Musk do with a knurled metal shaft?”
