My product is my garden
> That’s what I want from my products. I want to putter about, feel connected to the process, and have fun doing so. I want to make things that don’t scale. To see people tuck into them and enjoy them as people, not as stats.
> ...“Why is it Lion who posts so many big ideas on CommunityWiki?” “Because Lion posts so many big ideas on CommunityWiki.” Doing a task is in itself justification for you being the person who does that job....
這不是 Democracy，也不是 Meritocracy，這個概念也不是很完美（詳情請看 wiki 中的 Danger 一段）
不過應該還算符合目前 mastodon 的需要
Build a business, not an audience
> Many people learn this the hard way. They get lured by the promise that they’ll be able to create content effortlessly and build an audience this way. This is exactly what beginners want to hear and hence what gurus are preaching.
> Valuable content that truly advances the conversation and gets the attention of people you really want to connect with is never effortless. It’s painful.
@poga I think the article misses an important privacy point: Legislation. Allows better lawful privacy because one can select an instance in the same jurisdiction as the user, resulting in easier enforcement of privacy laws and avoids various privacy issues we experience every day due to US-focused platforms.
And overall arguing that federation isn't a solution and P2P is the way to go, ignores the enormous usability challenges that P2P networks cause and so far, no one really solved.
如果是為了隱私而使用 mastodon 的話... 可以參考一下這篇文章
> Federation results in the data of users being subject to the whims of the owner of the federated instance. Administrators can see correspondence and derive social graphs trivially. They are also in a position to selectively censor inter-instance communication. All of this while gaining none of the benefits of scale and discovery that centralized systems provide.
> All the privacy issues, none of the scale advantages.
How I cut GTA Online loading times by 70%
"for obvious reasons"
> Meaningless rhetoric used to gain the upper hand in an argument where you have nothing substantial to add.
> Ironically most employed in an attempt to end the most combustible & controversial of debates.