Because let’s say you’re Tom Hanks. And you get [email protected]
Well, what’s stopping someone else from adopting [email protected]?
And some platforms minimize the text size of platform, or hide it entirely. So you just might see TomHanks, and think it’s him. But it’s actually a 7 year old Chinese boy with a broken leg in Arizona.
Because anyone can grab the same name, on a different platform.
I presume I’m supposed to care, but I dont, and I don’t know why anyone would.
The other night 337K people all registered to vote, simply because Taylor Swift sent one message on instagram.
People come to the platforms FOR the celebrities. And that’s just ONE celebrity. The more celebrities on the platform, the more fanbases come with it.
But celebrities are picky. If they think something will hurt their image, they won’t do it. Even if theres minimal chance it hurts their image. They have to be protective.
So they need assurance that when they post something, there’s zero chance someone else could be posting “as them”. Ironically enough, that was the original purpose of twitters blue checkmark.
I think you have forums confused with microblogs.
Fuck the celebrities. They aren’t your people, peers, or friends. They adopt platforms only when they determine they can make a buck from it. They’re the kids that break your new toys, and you’re suggesting we keep inviting them over to play.
They will only bring enshittification. Having a platform that isn’t celebrity friendly is a boon.
With the celebrities come their followers. Which is like 97% of the world. I’m trying to get that 97% to adopt the fediverse.
But they don’t come on their own. They go where their celebrities go. The celebrities bring content for their followers to consume.
You’re arguing quantity over quality. I do not care the least for bootstrapped growth at the detriment of the platform. I also do not care about people who idolize and platform hop in order to follow celebrities. I suspect very few will bring with them value beyond increased traffic.
If you want this, Reddit is still an option available to you.
Quantity is quality, if you have good filters in place.
I never understood people that argue something is bad by looking at the median case. The problem of Reddit, Twitter and Facebook is not due to the amount of people they have, and they were absolutely fine until they tried to exploit their userbases.
(Aside for @[email protected]: see what I mean about Fedi’s anti-growth and reactionary culture? Our friend here is not an isolated case)
It’s more against having celebrities and their followers coming here en masse, which I get.
I’ve still seen a few comments mentioning “organic grow” which seems indeed healthier
“oh, I want it to grow, I just don’t it want to grow with people that I don’t like”
You can dress it however you want, it’s still elitist, reactionary and exclusive.
That’s the example used by OP to make their point. Just from a technical perspective, how are instances supposed to handle 300k new users overnight?
To come back to your usual argument, do you expect those hundreds of thousands of new users to get a Communick subscription? Or to even support the hosting costs of the instances they would use?