Yeah, on reflection, I think that’s the crux of it. There were some users from a more tight knit subreddit that I got to know well, but we all moved to discord a few years back. I miss some of the more active niche subreddits, but otherwise Lemmy replaced it very easily.
It’s entirely possible that my timing was just bad for Mastodon and good for Lemmy. The fact that I could jump on Boost and have an extremely familiar experience was a big plus. Bluesky was more similar in terms of migration experience to Lemmy than Mastodon was.
The other issue is that in a forum site you follow topics, where on a microblog site you follow people. The topics are here on Lemmy (to some extent), even if the people aren’t, but I don’t really care about the individual contributors as much. The people I wanted to follow for microblogging went to Bluesky, and that matters a lot more there.
That was actually part of my issue, and I experienced the same problem on Bluesky at first. The difference for me was ease of discovery and the influx of people I followed on other platforms. If they had gone to Mastodon instead, I’d have been more inclined to give it more effort. As it stands, I’m content with Bluesky and don’t feel I’m missing much on Mastodon. Perhaps I’m mistaken, and that’s my loss. Just trying to add some perspective.
It’s important to note that my experience is from a year ago, and I imagine a lot has changed. Part of my issue at the time was that I couldn’t see things like who people I followed were following because they were on a different server, which made discovery challenging. Also very few people who I followed on the bird site went to Mastodon.
I’m not saying the platform can’t work or that the barriers make it unusable, just that the draw wasn’t there to warrant the investment in learning a more complex platform than the alternatives.
Anecdotally, I joined Mastodon, found it difficult to find people who I personally know that were on different instances, kind of lost interest and thought kbin might be a better solution for both forums and microblogs all in one place, then my Mastodon instance shut down, and then kbin died too. Hence me being on lemmy.world, as default and stable of a server as there is here.
Bluesky felt fun and familiar right off the bat, my only issue was that it was still so small when I joined. Now that there’s an influx of new users, many of whom I followed on the bird site, it just feels like Twitter 2, which I suspect is what most people want.
FWIW I have a highly technical job and consider myself pretty tech literate, so I don’t think any of the issues I had with Mastodon weren’t things I could’ve figured out or worked around, I just didn’t feel incentivized to bother. I suspect they’ve smoothed out a lot of the federating issues I saw before, but at this point I’m happy enough on Bluesky to stay put.
At the risk of being dogpiled, I’d like to try to have some discussion on this.
Up front, I want to say that Ohio does a lot of dumb shit, trans rights are human rights, and weaponizing random laws against queer people is bullshit.
It seems clear to me that:
What isn’t clear to me is that this is selectively enforced against trans people. We only know about the cases where it has happened to trans people because those are the cases that are being reported on. It is not surprising that a cis person encountering a bureaucratic annoyance because they put the name they go by rather than their birth name on the form was not considered newsworthy.
The vibe I get from this is that this is ragebait where the headline invites the reader to jump to conclusions while the contents of the article suggest that this is actually just a stupid case of the government being bad at making a form (something I have personally encountered a lot).
I’m totally fine with being proven wrong, it wouldn’t be surprising in the slightest if there is malicious intent here. Is there evidence of selective enforcement here?
Believe me, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, and I 100% think this is wrong.
My take here is that filling out a government form and having it be rejected because you didn’t put required information that isn’t stated as required into a box that the form doesn’t have and getting denied/made to redo it is an extremely plausible scenario. In the case of a cis person being denied this way, it’s a mundane bit of bureaucratic nonsense that nobody would blink an eye at.
The article states:
The law has been in place in some form for decades, though it’s rarely been used and usually arises in the context of candidates wishing to use a nickname.
The fact that this law has been identified as a real problem for trans people and that there is a quote in the article from the (Republican) governor saying “this is bad, we should fix it” strikes me as acknowledgement that this dumb rule is disproportionately affecting trans people and should be fixed.
We have a depressing number of real examples of malicious use of the law against trans people, so all I’m saying is that this one doesn’t seem worth getting fired up about unless there is evidence of actual malicious intent here.
I’m going with Hanlon’s Razor on this one and assuming this is just a really stupid bureaucratic failure where a form doesn’t have a box for required info that it doesn’t tell you is required. Curious if there are similar examples for name changes by cis people, which I wouldn’t expect to be newsworthy. Regardless it needs to be fixed.
The issue is that this presents as false equivalence. While that is clearly not what you believe for this situation, the meme reads as a difficult choice between two equally bad options.
Excellent, thanks!