[jacky]lol so I see https://indieweb.org/snark when I'm looking at post types and I am kind of curious, how would one think of highlighting something like this? granted, if you _have_ to then something must have gone wrong in delivery
[Murray]On the one hand, I'm glad someone senior at Instagram is actually owning that sentiment. There recent changes have made it such a pain to upload images, that's why I finally started moving off the platform and onto my site π Still, it's said for actual photographers; will be interesting to see what fills that void
calebjasik, astralbijection[, LaBcasse[m], reed, batkin[m], Abhas[m], BinyaminGreen[m], cambridgeport90[, Lohn, jernst[m], SamSchmitt[m], M002fa7[m], cambridgeport904 and gRegor joined the channel
[Murray]Yep, and I still reckong it's the best option. Unfortunately I've not seen any movement in that direction from most places; it's still mainly those that used it in the past, or those using it more for photo storage (as I do), than actually developing communities, like Instagram was.
[Murray]I guess the curated feel of it, the easy filtering, the targeted nature. It follows a lot of the same information discovery patterns I associate with digital gardens, even if (I suppose) the content isn't really mutable enough (not sure that's the correct term)
[tantek]the message feels a bit like hankering for the "good old days" which feels dismissive of the actual problems / dead-ends encountered with RSS, UX, interacting with each other.
[tantek]"RSS" (the experience) was/is pretty much read-only, one way from publishers to consumers and that model misses the fact that most people, most of us even, want to be more social with our online interactions (despite today's social media being more antisocial)