This shit demonstrates exactly some of the arguments I've been making here. The thing that I want to direct everyone to is this:
"There is a fundamentally diferent culture here that you will need to understand or accept or you won't make it here... This is a world of builders.. you won't get anywhere by publishing social thesis or critiques."
https://soapbox.midwaytrades.com/objects/0c9b5e2b-1673-408d-acef-e6e7024ff3f1
The post, and the poster's replies, indicate one of my broader critiques: the "open source world of builders" that the OP points to is one that, by OP's own admission, does not care about the social critique of the things they are building.
That is, in a "world of builders" the social organization of what is being built is less important than actually being able to build something. To the extent that the social is less relevant, this is that I "need to understand."
Here, then, is a problem: insofar as this is a general attitude among members of the fediverse, it is predictable that folks are quick to say "build your own instance" as a solution BECAUSE it is an engineering solution presenting within the context of a "builder's world," but this ignores the fact that people have to LIVE in the world built by... uh... builders?
I am a retired software guy. I know at least 1/2 dozen software folks who would not accept the statement, "...This is a world of builders.. you won't get anywhere by publishing social thesis or critiques." There are likely many more that would reject that thesis.
As a systems analyst, a part of doing software, I can see where technical proposals are replete with dangers. A technical solution doesn't change the mindset that leads to the deplorable's behavior.
