One of the things I keep hearing here, over and over, is that "new" people on this platform shouldn't complain about things they find confusing or that don't meet their needs.
That's exactly wrong. New uses, who've not yet adapted themselves to possibly unworkable or inscrutable interfaces and limitations, are often in a unique position to have insights that old hands can no longer see.
Perhaps you're tired of hearing the same complaints over and over. But think about why people make them.
@mattblaze This is true, but it is equally true that volunteer contributors get tired of being told they're doing it wrong by masses on the internet, which often means doing work they don't want to do. Mastodon is free software, anyone is free to change it as they see fit. Or pay someone else to do it, or orgranize a company around improving the free software.Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. users are the product, so of course those companies will respond and keep them hooked.
@mattblaze @guardianproject the mastodon Patreon (which I contribute to) pulls in $372k annually, so this is hardly a case of whingeing users harassing unpaid volunteers.
@mattblaze @guardianproject I guess it depends how you broach it. One can be confrontational or one can be thoughtful. It does make a difference.
Also, an open-source developer is there for love. A big-tech coder? Not so much; it's a paycheck.
@spamless @guardianproject yes, people shouldn’t be jerks. But it’s extremely unrealistic to expect that people will refrain from discussing what they do and don’t like about a new platform they’re using. People talk about things that are of interest to them. Presumably the developers of a social media platform are familiar with and approve of that.
@mattblaze @spamless @guardianproject especially if you’re grant funded and have obligations to activists, journalists, and marginalised people you mentioned in your grant proposals.
If you say you’re an alternative to surveillance capitalism, you just announced a social mission too.
Are you making toys for coders, or do you want people to use your software? If the former, ship whatever. If the latter, embrace user research, especially when it’s handed to you on a silver platter.
@mattblaze @guardianproject seems like WP:SOFIXIT. While that does have valid points (eg, no one has claims on volunteers time) it's very confrontational and unwelcoming, as well as an unrealistic expectation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Someone_else_fix_it
@mattblaze Yes, it is extremely unrealistic. It is a very good idea to put ideas and concerns forward. The sort of attitude proposed would overlook CVEs as being the user’s problem to fix.
Mastodon is not the greatest exemplar of federated microblogging. There were quite functional things that came before it as early as 2008. Mastodon can be displaced in the future, of course.
@mattblaze @guardianproject As the recent years (and weeks) have shown, if one does not have thick skin, one should not code for the masses, run for president, or buy a social network company.
@mattblaze @guardianproject Maybe we need to start a Proposed Mastodon Change CW for complaints/suggestions about the software 😃
@mattblaze @guardianproject Trying to imagine what it would have been like if everyone using my software had been worried about hurting my feelings.
I just keep hearing Sandra Bullock saying "Mellow Greetings..."
@mattblaze @guardianproject Computers have become sensitive territory. Where one programmer might once have said to an esteemed colleague "What a STUPID idea!" (at which point they argued, and worked it out), that doesn't happen anymore. I suspect it can be a firing offensive these days.
It's unfortunate, a lot of really stupid ideas pass code reviews—if programmed in the right style—and get ”merged”. (Once called "shipped".)
@kentborg @mattblaze @guardianproject
"What a stupid idea" is a personal insult, it's name calling.
"that's not going to work the way you want and here's why" is a criticism.
You're conflating the two.
If "stupid ideas" are passing code reviews because good engineers can't think of words to use that aren't just direct insults, perhaps they need to improve their vocabulary, or their emotional intelligence.
I think it's too simplistic to take the FOSS motto of "anyone can change/fix what they think is wrong" and apply it to federated services. Changes to the protocol will likely break federation, changes to the software at the other end of the protocol can break functionality. This isn't running a server that acts weird but almost nobody sees it. This is running a server that actively talks to a bunch of others in unpredictable patterns, and if you undermine that intentionally or unintentionally, it can have unexpected consequences.
I have a healthy respect for understanding why an entity does things a particular way. I may think it looks wrong, but there is often a solid reason for the method. For that reason, I tend to watch before carefully formulating my observation and a potential solution. But what I'm seeing, and what others relatively new to the Fediverse are seeing, is gatekeeping akin to that which plagued Linux for literally decades: "You're new, so your opinion is less valid until you spend the same time we did suffering through the pain of figuring it out for ourselves." That can only hurt in the long run.
@guardianproject You’re saying that people should refrain from discussing what they don’t like and what doesn’t work for them about a system because it might hurt some open source developers’ feelings if they see it?
That seems like an extremely unrealistic expectation at best.