@ksaj

For-profit corporations generally try to because they don't want to lose market share (though they may lobby to change laws of course). That's why online services from large corporations may vary a lot depending on where you are accessing them from.

Independent servers aren't worried about market share.

It's rhe guys who ran Twitter before Musk. They shadow banned anyone who spoke out against how the Chinese Government destroyed Hong Kong's democratic system.

Are you shocked they would cave to another Authoritarian Regime?

@mkj @Stomata

The ability to censor an entire social network is absolutely enshittification. Such an ability is always misused, especially if the company that controls it is itself based in an authoritarian country.

BS's entire selling point was that this wasn't possible, yet here they are doing it.

@Stomata No. This is many things, but one thing actually complying with the law is not is enshittification.

@FediTips

this is a very not good thing!

Hopefully this will convince more people to come to the fediverse, instead of not yet decentralised services.

No one controls the Fediverse

Not exactly - each instance admin controls their instance, and as such the experience of their users. That’s a critical difference for two reasons

1. It means you can join an instance that you jive with, and don’t have to “put up with” things you don’t like.
2. It means that in order for the Fediverse to continue to have diverse information and viewpoints, people need to avoid congregating on a few large instances.

@toxomat

I've seen a lot of people who still think Bluesky is decentralised, because that's how Bluesky hypes itself in interviews and media promotion. The media then perpetuates this for whatever reason.

A lot of what I've heard about Bluesky is that "it's like Twitter used to be!"

I don't think anyone who says that as a positive remembers how bad Twitter was about this kind of thing even before Musk bought it. At the absolute very least, everyone knows how everything turned out.

If there's anything we can learn from that, Trump's reelection, and COVID, it's that large groups of people can't seem to make decisions based on anything beyond a year or two ago. I'm not sure how to account for that to make any meaningful change.

@jargoggles

Yup.

Also, people seem to think corporate structures can be okay if only the people in charge are good people. This is similar to the "benevolent dictator" fallacy, it totally misses that the main problem is with the structure rather than who is in charge.

If people could think about the effects of structures more, real change could be possible.