I don't think the problem is strictly the existence algorithms, but rather how they are used against the users.
To some extent, on Lemmy users are free to sort posts how they wish. Such as by new, or hot.. etc. Should these types of algorithm-like features be banned too?
While pretty much Youtube and Facebook just decide for you what gets pitched to you.
I noticed a few duplicates in Lemmy search from time to time. Would definitely avoid doing that.
Concerns would be, if a were to join any given Lemmy server and create for instance, another tech community, and possibly getting said community taken down for spam.
Honestly the Fediverse is really better for connecting with strangers then locals. Not saying it can't be done but yeah, everyone is probably still using Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and etc. and to them they might see it as "no one is using the Fediverse" because not too many youtubers, or friends of theirs are actively using it.
You don't need multiple accounts on each service to federate. So essentially if you wanted to communicate with a user, say from a Lemmy server on Mastodon you can do so. That's federation.
Essentially the main things you are missing really from not joining another service is certain features, interface and a different focus and the like.
Right? so Peertube might have a completely different interface from Mastodon and Lemmy. And more of a specific focus on video related features.
edit: you would need a users handle, and then go to the service you use, like Mastodon and you can search for that user.
I been on the Fediverse around 2-3 years(closer to 3)
and, even still am trying out Fediverse platforms I hadn't got into as much as others. Such as Pixelfed.
As a supplier I can see that. But as a game developer on top of being a hardware manufacturer. Still seems like there would be some kind of counter of interest to their game selling potentially less copies to Sega's to an extent. Many do just buy Nintendo's games anyway. but what if that wasn't the case one day.
We might be seeing some growing signs of that today, with many opting for games like Fortnite over Nintendo's own games. Cod, wasn't really competing on Nintendo's console at the time when it was ported to Nintendo platforms since it was mainly driving people to other consoles with the better experience. (according to the fans of cod.)
So even if you look at their game platform like that, it's not 100% the same since they also make content of their own. They are still competing with 3rd party games for profit.
I made an account on the pixtagram.social Pixelfed server and idk what will come from it. But anything to reject meta.
Yes, of course it was up to Sega whether they wanted their game on another's console at any time. My point mainly was that Nintendo didn't block a competing game. While yes, Nintendo would profit from a console sale over a 3rd party game. Yet, seemingly not just from a 3rd party game that sells. As, I'm not sure if Nintendo would get a percent of a 3rd party devs profits. If that was the case that does sound about right. But not sure if that was the case.
last year I went cold turkey on video games for about a whole year. This year I started playing video games again, but started making better choices on video games not designed to addict me into playing repeatedly for days, weeks and months online.
It's not as cut and dry obviously, but Meta certainly does take away control from the user in comparison to Fediverse based platforms regarding algorithms. and despite how complex it is, the algorithm will still sort your feed for you based off that data.
I think that algorithms that the user can control is good. But when the algorithm is used against users like with Meta it's bad. It's about how it's used not just simply because an algorithm exists.