Maiyannah BishopI continue to be amused by people who want to discuss changes to a social network on anything but that social network.
All of the people who would be affected by any proposed change to the social networking standards are _right here_ talking on this thing _right now_. Any alternative is just going to be a subset of those people at best. If you want to discuss changes I'm going to consider at all, discuss them here, or don't bother.
sungo@maiyannah But they might get involved in the conversation before there's a common front by the admins/devs! They might have an opinion before the admins/devs are ready to hand down an edict! *eye rolling so hard they stick*
@maiyannah I remember when a decision to create an admin-only instance and to use Discourse heavily happened a couple months ago. It was entirely about controlling the narrative. There was a distinct desire for a lack of transparency about the ongoing operations of instances.
Well, and making sure the messages didn't propagate to the GS side of the fediverse because god help us if the OLD TIMERS had thoughts.
Well, and making sure the messages didn't propagate to the GS side of the fediverse because god help us if the OLD TIMERS had thoughts.
@sungo By splitting the community like that they empower a few at the cost of the many. It's literally the oppression dynamic. I reject it.
Nolan Lawson@maiyannah @sungo Just for context, I'm the one who spearheaded the admin-only instance (which is basically dead now BTW). My original goals were:
- move meta-talk off of the timeline; it was consuming all discussion
- try to get admins to at least talk to each other
- originally it was admin-only, but I relaxed this and even added a non-admin as an admin (insert Bertrand Russell reference) to avoid any appearance of elitist cabal
@maiyannah @sungo Yep that was a failure. My idea of a U.N. for admins was too ambitious.