why cohost is problematic (long) 
@aeva@mastodon.social But cohost can do the exact same thing? That doesn't solve this. If the problem is "no governance at all", then select an instance that *does* have governance?
The point I am trying to make here is that a locked-down centralized platform is *strictly worse* from an abusive-power-structures perspective - anything that cohost could be getting right in terms of governance, would also just be implementable as a fedi instance *without* the issues of cohost
why cohost is problematic (long) :boosts_ok_gay:
@joepie91 @aeva you know, you're not wrong, but a lot of my friends straight-up just won't switch to mastodon just because to them, it has "weird libertarian vibes" for exactly the reasons you're putting forth. they hate that it made Gab possible, and they consider cohost a decent alternative to that, but also with its own downsides.
why cohost is problematic (long)
@CymechDraws @aeva@mastodon.social Oh sure, I don't disagree that there are issues with the fediverse as it stands - both reputational and cultural - and that those need to be addressed.
But "creating another locked-down silo with an abuse-prone power structure" just isn't how you solve that problem, that just exacerbates it.
why cohost is problematic (long) :boosts_ok_gay:
@joepie91 @aeva sure! i mean hey, i don't have any stake in this. i'll try whatever version of not-tumblr and not-twitter appear to be least toxic in the given moment. imo there are advantages/disadvanges to both structures. we shall see what happens ! ✨