(08-10-2020, 07:13 PM)prologic Wrote:

(08-10-2020, 07:01 PM)jkl Wrote:

(08-10-2020, 06:11 PM)prologic Wrote: it should not be limited to just "Hackers"

See, here's the interesting issue:
Why not?

I'd argue that the whole internet was better before everyone was able to join. There are more than enough alternatives for non-hackers.

Why not? Why should everyday ordinary folk not have access to a social media that doesn't profit from their data? Hmm well because I believe everyone is entitled to their opinions, everyone should be able to freely share and express their ideas and engage in meaningful discussions. Otherwise what is the point? Why should the only place where this can happen is either large-tech giant (and authoritarians) that profit from the data you willingly or unwillingly hand over that is then used to sell advertising to you? Why should the only other place folks can go to have this kind of "freedoms" (as in beer) are either a) too complex to use, understand or even setup or b) relegated to a "special elite group"

Just my $0.02 :D

Sure we can keep the cool factor that Twtxt was designed as a "twtxt is a decentralised, minimalist microblogging service for hackers" (1st hit on Google), but why should there also not be a Twt.social for everyone else (that just so happens to use the same underlying spec)?

It sounds cynical, but I cannot recall a single example where this worked out well. I would like to belive in it too, from a humanist standpoint, that everyones potential can be realized with the help of technology, but as any community that becomes more popular without any barriers for entry, appears to degenerate into a pop-cultural stew of mediocracy that's just straining to relive, again and again. The most recent case is probably mastodon, that betrayed it's own ideals by promoting itself as "Twitter with better regulation", and thereby luring those kind of people who would cut off federation to not betray their ideological party line.