@rose_alibi Absolutely. And to truly solve that we need to stop relying on private, for-profit corporations to provide these services. As I said earlier, the real solution there is ending capitalism. Some accessibility features will never be useful to enough people to be profitable.
But until we manage to overthrow the established economic order...banking would be even less accessible if Bank of America was the only company offering financial services; email would be less accessible if Gmail was the only email provider; Twitter and Comcast generally *are* less accessible where they are the only providers. Staying the hell off of these closed systems as much as possible does help protect accessibility by creating a more diverse set of providers.
And I do kinda think it is an accessibility issue itself. Even if we got together and guaranteed email access to everyone for example...at some point the solutions will stop being technical and start being a social worker that deals with your email for you. Which kinda sucks, but it's going to be the only practical solution in some situations. But if that person really hates that solution and doesn't give a damn about practicality then the system is more accessible if it lets them figure out their own way.
Why in the world do you think changing the new boss won't be like the old boss, that someone getting paid to work for a company would be particularly different from someone being paid to work for a government office?
Politics is certainly no panacea to replace capitalism.
Our governmental institutions fail all the time, so I don't know why you'd see that as such an improvement.
Heck, governmental institution fail to require corporations to act the way you're prefer!
@volkris @rose_alibi I am not suggesting we change the boss. I am suggesting we remove the boss.
Mastodon is a pretty great example of how that could work -- the network as a whole is not run by any corporation, nor by any government. There is no boss. Yet it works pretty well, doesn't it? Certainly beats Twitter or Meta...
Find the one that looks like my user image and follow the links below it to learn more! Lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism
Of course there's a boss in Mastodon! The complaints about questionable decisions by the lead developer are pretty widespread.
Yes, there's a boss and there's perception that he's failing.
There are SO MANY complaints that Mastodon doesn't work all that well, from its resource consumption through issues of privacy and user disempowerment.
So absolutely, Mastodon is a pretty great example of how not only is there a different boss, but the different boss is just another failure point.
YES he tells people what to do. You say he cannot, but that's easily debunked by reality--as so many of your theories seem to be--but far from can't, he *does* in reality.
To say that a person can leave the project rather than do what they're told doesn't change that they're told what to do.
Same with your ideas about cities taking over tech projects: there will be workers being ordered around by bosses either way, project managers with final say in what gets done, based on political winds in the case of government control.
This wondrous theory you have about a world without bosses is not simply unrealistic but is flat out at odds with physical reality.
It relies on us accepting claims that we can see with our own eyes to be so false.
@volkris @rose_alibi It really sounds like you have no idea how Mastodon works and are just assuming it's the same as any proprietary social platform. It is not. This network is not one project. It is dozens at least, if not hundreds, each with their own entirely separate dev hierachies. If Hometown or Glitch Edition or Pleorama or Pixelfed want to go in a different direction than Gargron they can just do it and he cannot do a damn thing to stop them. Hell even my instance has some minor changes that do things in a way that Gargron does not want. Because I wanted something different, so I changed it. And he has absolutely no power to revert my changes. Mastodon, Inc could completely collapse tomorrow and my instance -- and thousands of others -- would still be here, running just fine. And other people would pick up the dev work -- people who *are already doing that work in separate organizations*. Because all of this is open, and anyone can do what they want with it.
It's not "open" the way Twitter once pretended to be, where the CEO could show up one morning as Musk did and just start cutting people off. It is truly, irrevocably open. The only thing that will ever stop you from experiencing this place *exactly* the way you want to is your own time and energy. That's it. If you want to change something and you're willing to put in a little work, you can. Anyone can. You can't force everyone else to change with you of course, but you can change your own experience here however you want.
@admin it really sounds like you have no idea how Mastodon works. It is a single project that you can check out at the Mastodon development website where the boss dictates how development proceeds, contrary to your factually incorrect theories.
@volkris @rose_alibi The only thing this "boss" actually controls is the trademark. So sure in a very technical and otherwise useless sense, "Mastodon" as a proper noun has a boss. But in any sense that actually matters, it does not. There is no single organization in control of the code (because of forks), there is no single organization in control of the content (forks and other Fediverse clients and individual admin decisions), and there is no single organization in control of the infrastructure (there are thousands of independent instances).
The boss only controls the name, and "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
Again, you keep making these statements that just aren't factually correct. Your theory is just don't match reality.
You say the only thing the boss controls is the trademark, but that's wrong. You can very easily see that the boss controls source code repositories if nothing else.
So yeah, once again, you have these fantastic theories that just don't line up with reality.
@volkris @rose_alibi Yeah he also controls the lamp in his bedroom, which seems equally relevant here. A lot of people control Mastodon source code repositories. The only thing that's special about his is the trademark.
@volkris @rose_alibi That is not a boss. He cannot tell anyone else what to do. There is the original developer, but there are others too. There are several forks that are creating alternate versions of the Mastodon code which add or remove features that others want or dislike. There are entire separate projects that interact with this network completely outside of his control. This "boss" cannot ban anyone, he cannot control who is here or what they are doing, he cannot control what features get implemented, he cannot control what content gets distributed, he cannot control what the end-user UI looks like. All he can do is put his code out there and *hope* that people *choose* to use it. And a lot of us do, because it's pretty decent stuff. But if you call that a "boss" then you have a very strange definition of that word...