switching.social
Ideals aren't weakness.
Ideals are what drive people to seek alternatives. I wouldn't be doing switching.social at all if I didn't care about what happens to other people.
If you just want "neutral" (i.e. amoral) tech, you should stick to Google, Facebook and Amazon, they will make your life much easier and smoother. Of course by doing so they will screw up lots of other people's lives, but if you don't care about ideals that shouldn't matter, right?
switching.social
I'm not enforcing anything. I cannot enforce anything.
I have no control over anything.
I have no gatekeeping ability or network effect.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I have any power over anyone.
All I'm doing is saying what I recommend, people are free to listen or ignore me as they please.
switching.social
You say you wish there was an alternative to my site... what exactly is stopping you making one?
(shrug)
It's easy to complain, it's hard to take action.
But as soon as you do take action, you'll find people disagreeing with your approach, and you will no longer be regarded as neutral.
switching.social
You say you wish there was an alternative to my site... what exactly is stopping you making one?
(shrug)
It's easy to complain, it's hard to take action.
As soon as you do take action, you'll find people disagreeing with your approach, and you will no longer be regarded as neutral.
switching.social
I attempted to contact Purism many times before removing them from my site. I never got any replies.
I have exchanged many messages with Brave folk on Twitter, including Brendan Eich. There was no common ground at all, Eich was hostile and derisive.
switching.social
The Librem phone, but it was only ever in the "bubbling under" section because it isn't ready.
"Librem One" was also in the all-in-one section briefly until I found out Purism wasn't going to ban people promoting genocide.
switching.social
The Librem phone, but it was only ever in the "bubbling under" section because it isn't ready.
"Librem One" was also in the all-in-one section briefly until I found out Purism wasn't going to ban people promoting genocide.
Even before the controversy, I tried to contact them about using their press photo to promote the Librem phone's preorders.
No replies at all, I never had any response from Purism on any issue.
switching.social
If someone is allowing genocide to be promoted on their services, I have moral issues with promoting their other products.
switching.social
Their code of conduct isn't visible from the outside, but it was reported that they were banning personal threats but not threats to groups of people.
So, for example, "I want to kill you" is banned but "I want to kill all people like you" (i.e. genocide) isn't.
I tried to privately contact Purism to verify this, never got any replies. If they're never going to reply to anything, I don't see any reason to give them the benfit of the doubt.
switching.social
Influence and power are totally different things, you merging them into one is disingenuous.
I know lots of people who want to leave Facebook but they can't, because all their friends are there. That's power, due to network effect.
If people don't want to read my site, there is absolutely nothing to stop them reading it. I have no power over what they read.
Gatekeeping means control of a gate, which is the only way to enter a city. That's power too.
I have no such power either.
switching.social
Influence and power are totally different things, you merging them into one is disingenuous.
I know lots of people who want to leave Facebook but they can't, because all their friends are there. That's power, due to network effect.
If people don't want to read my site, they can ignore it. I have no power over what they read.
Gatekeeping means control of a gate, which is the only way to enter a city. That's power too.
I have no such power either.
switching.social
There's nothing on that page except a vague statement about "harassment" without defining what it is. We have no idea what their social media moderation policy is in practice.
My understanding is they only count attacks on specific individuals as harassment ("I want to kill (person X)", but they do not count attacks on groups ("I want to kill all (group of people)").
They refuse to reply, refuse to be specific about policy.
switching.social
I don't think you get what gatekeeping is.
In the old days, cities used to be surrounded by impenetrable walls. The only way to get in or out was through the gatekeepers, they had full power over where people went.
I have no power over which sites people use, or whose advice they follow.
switching.social
It wasn't just "on the internet", it was reports from people on the Fediverse who actively campaign for privacy and that I trust on many other issues.
I then contacted Purism directly to verify this before taking any action. They failed to reply.
In the absence of any other information, I had to assume that the people I trust are telling the truth.
I'd love to be wrong about this, but Purism make it impossible to know what they do.
switching.social
At first Purism didn't want to have any moderation *at all*.
I get the impression they're an IT company with little or no expertise in community issues.
They don't seem to realise the responsibilities and duties of a community manager on social media, and one symptom of this is their total radio silence with enquiries (even towards people who want to promote their products!).
switching.social
It's not a dislike of their communication, it's a total absence of communication from them.
At first I assumed there must have been a misunderstanding, I tried to ask them for their side of things and they never replied.
What else can I do?
I used to be a big Purism fan, I wrote a section in the switching.social ebook about the Librem phone (that's why I originally asked for permission to use a photo, they never replied to that either).
switching.social
I've worked with IT companies in the past, and they will always give some kind of statement on these kinds of issues, even at a consumer level.
Being silent is a terrible policy, and indicates they either don't understand, don't have time or don't care. Whatever the reason, you can't run a community responsibly with that attitude.
switching.social
Thinking about it, the companies Purism currently reminds me of are Google and Facebook.
They don't reply to enquiries either, even from major partners.
There's a desire for everything to be entirely automated with minimal human contact, even on social networks that are supposed to be entirely about human contact.
Going down that route is the cause of most of the problems on social networks, where algos are gamed to produce horrible effects.
switching.social
I don't think it's helpful to dismiss critics as "the mob". I tried to go down the "let's hear from them first" route, it was Purism that failed to respond.
"reducing social media toxicity in a scalable way by other means than moderation or AI"
I don't think Purism are reducing toxicity if what I heard about their policy is true.
Incidentally, one of the people reporting these problems used to deal directly with Purism.
switching.social
It sounds like Purism should have stuck to hardware, and simply doesn't have the resources or expertise to run a social media instance.
Yes, there's the CC, but it's good form to get written permission for using PR photos, especially in an ebook being sold commercially.
Bobinas P4G is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.