OCamlot - (Untitled post)

<a href="https://mastodon.social/@gamingonlinux" class="u-url mention">@gamingonlinux</a> I strongly recommend filing a bug report, as that's not normally an issue and should be looked into as if you're having issues others might be too.I just tried it on my mastodon.social test account and didn't see an issue (I already make extensive use of them on this account, the instance for which runs stock Mastodon 4.2)You're probably going to be flamed to high heaven for recommending the corporately owned Bluesky to Mastodon users. I... must admit to being sympathetic with that view but will avoid flaming you over it ;-)What I will say though is that I feel like nobody learns any lessons any more. We've seen what happens with social networks owned by the millionaire/billionaire tech cabal.Bluesky is that, run by people appointed originally by an admirer of Elon Musk's approach to social media and funded in part by crypto money. It uses an unproven protocol to prove its decentralized bona fides (and I'm glad it's making the effort) but that protocol has at least one choke point, the Relays, which can only ever be corporately owned, and there's no incentive to run relays. (By comparison you can run a complete Mastodon instance on a $50 Raspberry Pi hooked up to a $50 1Tb USB external SSD, all in your closet gatewayed via a $1/mo VPS and $10/year domain name, and that'll serve an entire family's social networking needs. I'm not recommending anyone do that, but the fact it's possible means this will always be our network, not Musk's, not Zuckerberg's, not cryptobros, our's.)We need to focus on making the activitypub based fediverse more accessible and implement those features that are still missing.I'm really against encouraging those here to leave until Bluesky proves its federation model is viable. Twitter (RIP), Reddit, even Wordpress, Medium, Multiply have all proven that handing your private life over to a corporate third party is a very, very, bad idea.