The Daily dot article has two very separate points: politics is not present, and governance of the project might be problematic. Also the headline was just to bait people into reading it and contradicts the conclusion.

First point: lol, they have never used Mastodon long enough to see the depth of politics here, with the majority I've seen being related to LGBTIQ things than elsewhere, so that's moot and we can set it aside.



Second point was about crediting people and governance, and there's more meat to that point than it looks. I've not paid much attention to the governance of the project, but one part that was not explored is that community forks are fine, and that any group can run their own instance to their own rules.

A lot of conflation between the tool itself and the primary instance, and then the GitHub governance of the codebase.

It is preferable that governance of development occurs in a manner that the community at large prefers but I'm not convinced that's even possible, particularly with diametrically opposed interests.

But there's pleroma, mastalab etc so even if this is truly a toxic wasteland, the ecosystem is sustainable. 🙂

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!