> That seems like a positive, not a negative. If you don't like the choices of the people running Twitter or BlueSky, you can't leave but still maintain your social graph.
I (actually not my personal but a project account) had to move servers because the original server had been blocked by other admins because of a fairly interminable dispute about whether one user had been racist (it was far from clear cut from what I could tell from the brief time I spent digging into it).
How is this positive? It seemed to spell out a future where Mastodon split into islands based on long-forgotten generational disputes.
I want one network with a clean way to choose who I see and who interacts with me. I don't want other people making this decisions on my behalf.
I (actually not my personal but a project account) had to move servers because the original server had been blocked by other admins because of a fairly interminable dispute about whether one user had been racist (it was far from clear cut from what I could tell from the brief time I spent digging into it).
How is this positive? It seemed to spell out a future where Mastodon split into islands based on long-forgotten generational disputes.
I want one network with a clean way to choose who I see and who interacts with me. I don't want other people making this decisions on my behalf.