This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
What does ceding control even mean? Mastodon, just like Lemmy, is federated - each instance has its own governance. It was never controlled by a single person to begin with.
He can cede control of the GitHub repository, I guess, but:
I take it that you missed the whole WordPress situation that developed over the last couple of months?
It's about control over the intellectual property (trademarks, copyright) as well as control over the company which pays the developers. One does definitely not want a single person in control of these things, otherwise they can hold the whole project hostage (like Mullenweg is accused of, in the case of WordPress).
Additionally, the change also gives them a preferable tax status than the previous arrangement.
Someone is still in charge of the git account. No matter how many commits there are being made, unless the owner of the repo approves to merge them, it's not happening.
And sure, someone could create a fork that includes their changes if they aren't being merged, but then this separate fork might at some point lose compatibility with the original software. And on a purely semantic note, this fork wouldn't be the original mastodon either.
We should not expect greatness from the men who create these corporations, they are not great men, they are not even good or especially intelligent men. They fell into their position by luck, the one in a million triers for whom circumstance clicked into position. The only thing that sets them apart and perhaps accounts for their success is how they are so consistently open to sycophancy and manipulation by the pack of cold and savage business graduates that flock to any form of success. When a person is against type, as seemingly is the case here, they stand out and just once in a while are capable of real greatness.
Like it, like Bluesky too, uninstall Twitter after using these apps for several days.
Reject any app that has an forced automated recommendation system
I do wonder what prevents BlueSky from going the way Twitter did, though.
Absolutely nothing. I fully expect it to follow a similar trajectory.
Bluesky is still running on VC cash. We haven't seen how they plan on monetizing it yet, but if anything that is where their major fuckup will happen.
Nothing, which is okay. People make the mistake of thinking users have any even passing interested in a good platform with social media, not just the social connections on it.
That is why Bluesky can be so successful: It's an absolutely smooth and effortless drop-in replacement for Twitter, and has no gathered enough momentum for it to be easy to find existing people you want to follow on it, further drawing more people who you might want to follow in. So the motivation to use it is there, and the switch itself is essentially unnoticable.
The Internet needs fewer Stalins and Hitlers and more George Washingtons.
More slave owners it is then!
It is an imperfect system, but my comment was more about leaders not clinging to power to the detriment of society.
I was just kidding. I understand what you meant. Monkey paw wish. Lol
