Even if marketing it as a "safe space" gets a few more users, the so-called growth is not worth the toxicity it creates. Is indiscriminately trying to pull in more users even what is really wanted? Chances are it is never going to be Facebook.
One of the cardinal rules of privacy is that someone is supposed to *minimize* the amount of data held. This is the exact opposite.
So, that is already one red flag against it.
While it is true that there might be stuff like cached data, and maybe that data should be easier to manage, this is also far more indiscriminate in what it collects.
The utility of it at this time is also largely hypothetical, although even supposing it is plausibly useful to someone, it is very over-engineered for the utility it actually provides and it's not clear why someone needs to use *this particular tool*. But, you know what, let's give it the benefit of the doubt momentarily in this post.
It is a treasure trove of information. If someone lives with an abuser (or with some sort of abusive dynamic going on), that might be troublesome.
It could be legally hazardous. What if someone inadvertently encounters illegal content? What if someone does moderation? Is that content going to be "saved"?
How might the data be managed? Can it be managed? Is it clear what is in it?
Someone tried to explain to me how a location tracking app is supposedly good, but the more I heard, the creepier it sounded. #privacy
Just because someone *can* do something (although, since it involves "AI", who knows what weird way it might fail) doesn't mean that they *should*.
I'm trying to use replies to the post instead of QTs here because these can render as links and I don't think people click on links as much.
One reason I don't do this is because I don't really want to create a lot of noise on tags by pulling in every tag that might be vaguely relevant to a post.
There's someone who goes around using something like four to ten tags in almost every take or reply he makes, and it feels a lot like that.
"obnoxious commenters"
I think it is actually a good example of how just breaking down any random boundary is not necessarily helpful.
For instance, let's say someone has an edgy blog.
If it's on something like the fediverse though, then that edgy blog is slurped into the same space as countless other things. All of a sudden, instead of being cushioned in it's own corner, it is viewed as an object of debate and anyone and everyone might want to get in on that.
Did removing that boundary help?
This opinion is probably not the end all and be all of opinions, lol.
I don't #understand #people who #insist on #talking like this.
If the problem was just a couple of people making edgy posts in a corner of the Internet, it wouldn't be much of a problem. Well, maybe someone might not like that, but it's not as if it would get much attention.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/09/us-government-considers-historic-break-up-of-google-in-antitrust-case/ What do you think of this?
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.