In many ways, Mastodon feels like rewinding the clock on social media back to the early days of Twitter and Facebook. On the consume side, that means that your home feed has no algorithm (this can be disorienting at first).
Practically, it means that you see only what you want to see and only see it linearly. You never wonder “why am I seeing this and how do I make it go away?”. Content can only enter your home feed via your followed tags or handles and the feed is linear like the early days of social media.
Wait… So you’re arguing… Less options is BETTER? That somehow if they took away the choice of seeing ads and made payment mandatory, instead of giving users the choice, that would be more moral?
WTF?
Obviously less options isn’t better in all circumstances. When of the options happens to be predatory then yes obviously it is better to not allow such a thing.
Imagine you have two options. You can either pay a one time fee of $50 or you can borrow the $50 and pay back $2 a month with 75% interest. Is allowing people the option to accidentally pay 5 times the amount something is valued better? Not that this situation is completely analogous to what is going on with Sync, but the point is to demonstrate that there exists a circumstance that less options is better for the consumer. Or at least a circumstance where having the only option has more integrity.
The best option I see for Sync that doesn’t implement ads at all and thus being bad is to have a less featured version for free and then sell premium features. Or of course just sell the whole thing with no free version. There is also a the concept of a limited demo so you can try before you make your decision to purchase. There are so many things you can do that don’t involve ads.
Yeah, no. I think that’s a ridiculous opinion to have. FOSS is all about personal choice, yet here you are arguing that choices should be limited because you personally don’t like one of the options. We’re just going to have to disagree on this.
