No doubt. The people at notabug, mostly, are the most abrasive assholes that have been pushed out from other sites. They're not good people. You gotta be the change you want to see. I often post about technology and science there. But I'm simply not enough to make the frontpage always tolerable to people that can't ignore assholes. Sometimes there are strings of racist posts but that's still better than corporate censorship.
The people aren't the point. The technology is. It's a federated server system using the GUN distributed database. And posts can be transferred from instance to instance via p2p between browsers.
If you want to start a notabug server you can run it with an iron fist and censor all you want. But notabug, at heart, is about not censoring. Even for people who suck and say shitty things.
> But notabug, at heart, is about not censoring. Even for people who suck and say shitty things.
Then you can keep it. What I look for in a social media site is learning interesting things, and having rewarding conversations with people. Notabug sounds like it's neither of those.
I like this kind of decentralized social tech a lot. But, IMO, a social network built like this just won’t work if the default instance you see is a hive of scum and villainy. It tells you exactly which way the leadership leans, and I doubt many people want to participate in a community mired in far-right “politics”. For there to be any adoption, the front page of these kinds of services needs to be friendly and tightly moderated, à la Mastodon. No amount of being the change you want to see will help if the roots are rotten.
The people aren't the point. The technology is. It's a federated server system using the GUN distributed database. And posts can be transferred from instance to instance via p2p between browsers.
If you want to start a notabug server you can run it with an iron fist and censor all you want. But notabug, at heart, is about not censoring. Even for people who suck and say shitty things.
reply