4. As others have pointed out, how does shutting them out completely stay in keeping with fediverse principles? This is legitimate question since, to me, it seems like despite the risks, it’s antithetical to the spirit of the fediverse until they demonstrate bad behavior here.

how much bad behavior do you want to see before accepting that MetaZuck is evil and has no go intentions?

There’s a literal trail of dead startups and bodies.

It’s not that they might do something better.

It’s that they have a history of encouraging the competition to adopt an open standard (to gain the active users), and then purposely scuttling the standard in order to sink the competition (and leave the users with no functioning alternative).

this was an excellent article. I’m old enough to remember being impacted by these events.

I’m not in Munich, but I remember trying to embrace OpenOffice, and telling my wife how pissed off I was that Microsoft wasn’t following it’s own open source document standard.

I remember Google killing XMPP, and there’s also the more recent examples of what Facebook has done to WhatApp, Instagram, and the other potential competitors that got buried.

well shoot. this sums it up so well, there’s nothing to add.

The definition of “reasonable ads” and “just a few ads” keeps sliding. I’m old enough to remember the early internet, and that this lie has been told many times.

Just a few acceptable ads always becomes many unacceptable ads, because money.

By this logic, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the name of a group, but that bad apple isn’t necessarily representative of or indicative of the whole group.

sure, we could argue about who’s bad apples are more rotten, but what’s the point? humans are fallen and imperfect, so it’s no surprise that groups of humans are also imperfect.

I guess the next question to ask, is the group defined by the actions of it’s bad apples, or by the principles it claims to stand for?

also depends on the religion.

beehaw disabled downvotes, but other instances haven’t. the sidebar said disabled downvotes encourages more active discussion, and prevents unpopular opinions from being silenced by a flood of downvotes. they want people to engage by saying “i disagree with you, here’s why” instead of passively downvoting and moving on.

you should be able to see you the upvotes on your comments though.

some incorrect answers get upvotes ironically, often when the correct answer seems obvious. but I guess it depends on the type of question, and the sub

edit: for those on jerboa (like me) who can’t see the image, it’s Willy Wonka’s “Good DAY, Sir!” meme

Even in corporations that are committed to a good culture of kindness, you can still find opponents who won’t hesitate throw you under the bus in order to further an agenda.

Using active tone in corporate is risky, because office politics can accuse it of being aggressive/hostile in order to block a policy. They don’t necessarily care that the messenger winds up getting written up by HR and sent to sensitivity training.

I find myself being very careful about then tone of my emails after getting caught in the crossfire between two warring factions. Passive tone is less likely to come back to haunt you.

I really hate having to navigate office politics, but it is what it is.

“There will be a cake reception for all test subjects upon successfully launching the app. We promise you will like it”