Overall, in my experience, any improvement will require the same amount of time; whether from bad to acceptable or acceptable to good.

I’m not saying it’s a matter of desire. It’s a matter of time. A full-time developer has to feed their family, so they have to put most of their time into the stuff that makes them money. That means that their passion project is just naturally going to get less time as a function of the number of hours left in the day and the amount of energy for coding that the developer in question has.

Further, ux design is a less “atomic” process; small amounts of time working on ux is going to have less impact than small amounts of time in coding. A programmer could conceivably fix a bug or make a minor improvement or feature request in ten minutes, and a Wikipedia editor could spend ten minutes improving the grammar and punctuation of an entire article; but the ux process requires mockups, iteration, asset creation, and coding for every change—and even if that can be done in ten minutes, the rest of the ui will look completely different, meaning that the overall ux will be worse than before, despite that one thing looking better.

What can we do to change it? Companies that rely on FOSS should contribute to projects so that the people who work on them can afford to do so at least part-time, or empower their own employees to contribute to FOSS on company time. Those are really the only two options, barring some sort of UBI or public grant for open source software.

Well, that’s intentional though. The stuff that’s buried is the stuff that doesn’t make them money.

Bad ux in open source is because nobody has any money.

Honestly, just building an RCS app with easy grouping, quick captions, streak tracking, and delete requests would be the way to go with this. Then you have an immediate network effect of every iPhone and Android user in the world, and you don’t have to get your friends to switch if they don’t want to.

Goals, for sure. The guy just does whatever he wants at this point. I think he’s doing photography now?

I’m not answering that question. I’m answering whether this is the movement that dethrones it.

ls #HelloQuitMeta the Next Viral Movement?

Probably not.

Something eventually will be. Meta will not last forever.

This one? Nah, probably not. Meta is undoubtedly going to censor, suppress, hide, and deprioritize posts about this. But someday it will.

Maybe. Depends on what they do with it. But assuming they have any power on this board at all, it’ll be better that they’re there than if they weren’t. It’s not like Linux Foundation “keeping their hands clean” is going to help anything other than optics.

So far all of their ai stuff has been:

1. Accessibility features

2. A sidebar that you can put a third party AI into, which probably took an afternoon to code

I just don’t get why people are upset that they’re doing literally the bare minimum to grab headlines so that normies realize they’re a legit browser.

Why are the capitalists so complainy?

“Pull yourself up by your bootstraps 😤, facts don’t care about your feelings 😤, Apple is mean make them stop it 😭”

I mean, they are a close second. Meta is maintaining a comfortable lead, but give Twitter a few more Bluesky hemorrhage cycles.

More likely, it’s calculated. The Linux Foundation probably did the math and realized that they could either participate in it, or watch Google run it themselves, packing the board with sycophants and leaving it with no real oversight.

This way, there’s actually a trusted nonprofit voice in the room.

Wait, are you calling me a “bootlicker?” When have I ever been anything but critical about the oligarchs running our society?

Yeesh. The Internet be wild, y’all.

Nah, you’ve got cause and effect flipped. Know what we used to do when sociopaths did too much sociopathic stuff? We made the sociopaths leave. Now they have too much money, so we can’t effectively do that anymore.

Of course, yes, they did create that system. But they created it so that they could retain the benefits of the society without contributing to it meaningfully.

Something ain’t right

Ah, I think what you’re looking at there is called “capitalism.” It’s what enables selfish anti-social/sociopathic behavior without triggering our societal inclination to kick them out.

Civilizations, societies, communities. The Apollo program. The National Park Service. Emancipation. Everything good we’re capable of as a species comes from working together.

The mass weaponization of it is, of course, a problem.

It is a justification, actually, because other people are using it against them to extract value for themselves. Users of corporate social media are no more responsible for their addictions than alcoholics are. Some people break it, sure. And some people use it without developing an addiction. But those aren’t the people we’re talking about here.

And it served us well for millennia. In a lot of ways, it made us who we are.

I understand that logic, but “being the product” must not really be that bad for them. They might complain, but if it was truly distasteful, they’d do something about it.

And being exploited for profit and explicitly knowing it is about the saddest thing I can think of for my fellow humans. It’s no wonder the billionaires just take and take, because people let them.

One may as well have said the same things about cigarettes up through the 1960s. Sometimes we do things against our best interests. Sometimes it’s really, really bad for us. Sometimes it’s painful and deadly.

Humans aren’t rational creatures.

Will it only be seen as an alternative once a critical mass of users move there?

I mean, yeah? That’s how social media works.