> and you are confusing the aggregation part with the content itself If they aren't the same, that's a bug. The lesson of Facebook et al should be that aggrega

> and you are confusing the aggregation part with the content itself If they aren't the same, that's a bug. The lesson of Facebook et al should be that aggregation and content should be in the same place. People use these sites after a long day of work and don't have the time or energy to plug in other fragmented software to make it work--even technical people. They just want to consume and share content. They would see this fragmented ecosystem vs. the shiny all-in-one network with social proof of all their friends and celebrities. > But this temporary and specific to Mastodon It's endemic to all of these alternative platforms because they select for (other than curious technophiles) people who were too extreme for the mainstream platform. Here's how to solve it and to get what you actually want: One decentralized global network with self-directed moderation (following/friends). The problem with Facebook et al is not the UX or the quality of implementation. It's that the protocol is owned by one corporation. Why can't you just clone Facebook in every single aspect except the computers it runs on (everyone's rather than Facebook's).