4 ms·
> It's a migration for the future, not a migration of your past content - understandable because that past content likely has references from other instances an
by maelito 2y ago
> It's a migration for the future, not a migration of your past content - understandable because that past content likely has references from other instances and pushing those changes across would be a heavy operation, unreliable, and probably fraught with potential security problems.
Yes of course I'm getting the technical and conceptual difficulties as a developer, but it's awful UX. It's a real deal breaker once you discover it. You cannot use Mastodon as your primary content database anymore.
- jeromegv 2y agoIt’s a social network. Do you expect Facebook or Twitter to be your primary content database? But I do agree UX could and should be better
- ethbr1 2y agoI think most people expect their Facebook and Twitter posts to be around in 5 years.
- jzb 2y agoI don’t. It’s naive to believe any social network is in it for the long haul. Too many have failed to believe they won’t as well. Particularly, exitter. It’s best to assume anything you don’t host yourself is ephemeral.
- chomp 2y agoAnd yet, I have Facebook posts that will be 20 years old next year. The attitude that “I’m distrusting of social media, therefore this major adoption blocker is fine as it exists” is why only techies have managed to adopt Mastodon, and is why that will be the limits of its adoption.