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 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.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

I'm not sure about that argument. I mean there are right and wrong tools for a job. There are people constantly trying to drive in a screw with a hammer. They might be better off with a screwdriver. We could also devise a multitool, or not do it. Ultimately, if just the right tool is in front of you, you'd better have a specific reason why not to use it... I can see one general abstract argument, and that's competition is good or more general or featureful tools are good.

Not having server-side platforms is a very interesting argument. I mean most users are using smartphone apps anyways... I don't know why we bother with translating everything twice and doing that many server-side things. ActivityPub with it's concept of inboxes and outboxes is kind of designed to run with a minimal server and do most logic and rendering client-side anyways. We'd need to take care not to fragment the platform into many incompatible pieces... But we could do a lot of things inside of an app instead of on some intermediary server.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 4 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Ultimately, if just the right tool is in front of you

That's the thing. The "better" tool isn't right in front of me. OP didn't know about it.

And if they did, they would have to do the whole "which instance to join" dance, again.

And after they joined the instance, they would have to find a mobile app to use. (oh, oh, there isn't one)

And after they said "fuck it, let's just use the web UI", they'd be like "okay, I can follow people from mastodon and I can follow Lemmy groups, but if there is an user that is on Lemmy, it still means that they can only post things to groups. (IOW, incomplete interoperability resulting in functionality silos)

Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler/easier if Lemmy had the capability to let the user create posts without referencing any group? Even if it wasn't the main feature, it could be implemented at the server and documented just enough for those working on alternative clients. The "purists" that don't care about the functionality would still keep their tools intact, but the others would greatly benefit.

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

they would have to do the whole “which instance to join” dance, again.

Oh, this again.

Seriously, you're now arguing for a monoculture and centralization.

At that point, just go back to Reddit.

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

One more of these ridiculous "so you are saying..." comments, and I will start responding to you with Cathy Newman memes.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago

Well, stop expressing that people shouldn't have to make choices about what they use, and maybe I'd give a shit what you say or do.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)