i don't want to bring the big forum website that lead to the creation of lemmy (red**t), but that site lets you create posts for your own profile, like, it treats your own user wall as if it was a "subreddit" of its own and, if you don't have any followers or don't have the followers button enabled not a lot of people will see your post, but at least you can just sort of use it for posting interesting or casual stuff. lemmy should totally implement that please!!! can you do that on lemmy?? i tried but there's not a way you can do it, i've been trying so if you know a way of creating posts on your profile, please let me know thank you

edit: there were a few grammar mistakes,i'm sorry!!!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rglullis@communick.news 11 points 4 days ago (12 children)

it’s not part of the Lemmy model.

It's not part of the model yet. There is absolutely nothing stopping it from being implemented, and it could be very useful to do so.

This whole "Lemmy is only for doing this one thing, Mastodon is only for this other thing, Matrix is for this other thing" mentality is frankly short-sighted. There is a common standard that can allow application developers to implement multiple use-cases, we do not need separate accounts/services/clients for each of that.

If that were the case, we would never have webmail and everything would have to have its own specific client that could talk with only one specific server.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 days ago (11 children)

The thing is, mbin is right there if you want that kimd of functionality. There isn't really a reason why everything needs to evolve into omni-applications. It's better to have a broad ecosystem that has something for everyone, rather than a monopoly that's servibg everyone a compromise.

Just look at the Twitter mugrations in 2022, and the clammor for quote posts. Misskey was right there, giving them exactly what they wanted, but you couldn't speak the name of anything that wasn't "mastodon" because everyone is brand focused and context blind.

What OP wants exists. It's right there. It's just not named Lemmy.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (10 children)

To go back to the webmail example, we could have said "no need for hotmail/gmail because Eudora or Pegasus already exist." "No need to have Google Maps because MapQuest already has a desktop client".

Yes, we didn't really need any of these, but the problem with this thinking is that it assumes that the progress of software application is linear and "intelligently designed", when it reality it much closer to how actual life evolves, by testing many different adaptations and keeping those that make them more fit to their environment.

It doesn't matter that kbin already have certain functionality if its main developer was a control freak who was holding back its evolution and its users had not trust in him. There were other features that it was lacking (no API, no third-party clients, not easy to deploy, no moderation tooling, etc) and still do. We can not just tell someone "what you want is on kbin, use that instead", because there will be different use-cases that kbin does not fulfill.

Software co-evolves. Lemmy should "steal" from mbin, as it should steal from Pleroma, or Mastodon/PixelFed is now "stealing" things from Bluesky. This is wasteful, but is at least robust.

If software was "intelligently designed", we will not have any server-side platforms and just have "Generic ActivityPub servers" that can handle the messages being passing around actor inboxes, and we would all be using client-side browsers that are aware of the ActivityPub vocabulary. But this will be like the GNU/Hurd of the Social Web, and saying that server software should have each only have one defining feature is a recipe to have the whole ecosystem ossified.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We can not just tell someone “what you want is on kbin, use that instead”, because there will be different use-cases that kbin does not fulfill.

So instead, it's "let's beg Lemmy to fulfill these use cases that it currently does not". Got it. Makes total sense, and is not internally incoherent at all.

Definitely not just arguing for a monoculture.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Definitely not arguing for a monoculture. You are overreacting and reading whatever you want, instead of what I've actually written.

I'm not saying "people should leave mbin and use only Lemmy as the end-all solution". I'm saying "those who are already on Lemmy should not be forced to adopt yet-another tool just because some other alternative fulfills one use-case better".

mbin might make some of what Lemmy does and it makes some of what Mastodon does, but it is not a perfect replacement to neither. There is always a cost to adopt any new piece of software (and I'm not talking about price, here). If some users are happy with it, by all means let them continue using it, and I hope it keeps improving. But to think that is reasonable to tell everyone "Lemmy doesn't do this, use mbin instead" is like saying "Linux is not good on the Desktop, use Windows instead".

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

They're websites. You're arguing that people shouldn't use different websites. On the Internet. Which is kind of how the Internet's been going the last 15 years, and has turned out to be a total disaster.

The idea that the largest game in town should adopt the features of smaller players, rather than users exploring other options because there's a slight inconvenience to the user just seems, I don't know, incredibly entitled. It's also how smaller projects stay invisible and die, leading to a monoculture.

So no, you're not arguing that "we should have a monoculture!", you're just saying "people shouldn't have to make choices!" which... leads to monoculture. And overwhelmingly supports the status quo.

load more comments (8 replies)