I want to clarify something. Establishing boundaries is okay, and a microblog can be very personal. A microblog can be a safe space for someone, but also a brand account that has everyone screaming at it. Establishing boundaries on an account that's personal is more akin to establishing a boundary as a person. Some people get harassed. That's just a reality. If someone is triggered by constant corrections because of harassment, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to establish that boundary. But that's up to them to establish, not to assume everyone else would or should know and that people are evil if they don't.

Microblogs are different, they can be very personal.

One of the traits of ASD is unintentionally offending people. That doesn’t mean people have to accept every rude thing an autistic person does without complaint, and they’re ablist if they don’t. It means you should be understanding and clearly explain boundaries. That’s exactly what the original post did.

No it didn't, it tried to explain an invisible boundary like it's a normal thing for everyone and everywhere when it isn't.

Yeah, it’s annoying that some rules are usually unwritten because everyone else already knows them. It would be more annoying if everything anyone ever wrote had “Please don’t respond with advice or criticism” at the end.

...how is that annoying? People write little messages in content warnings all the time, and like I mentioned in the OP you can stick it in your bio and write it once. Not everyone knows them anyways, because even in the Fediverse that kind of thing can differ a lot. I honestly feel like you didn't really bother to read my entire post, because your response doesn't seem to be really addressing the criticisms I made in the post and their reasoning.

This rule has been written down now, clearly and very politely. Maybe you or I didn’t know it before but we do now. If you refuse to listen and continue correcting strangers on social media that isn’t autism, it’s just being intentionally rude.

Again, the OP is giving advice for interaction on the network /generally/. They aren't just talking about themselves. Again, I feel like you didn't really read what I said, because a lot of what you're saying is a strawman.

Traditionally, a "reply guy" is someone who replies to a specific person or group of people over and over with excessive corrections/"just asking questions"/other tactics with the intent to harass/waste time/make people angry. It's a kind of troll that's typically on Twitter.

A quick way to break eye contact is to scroll.

YouTubers Stop Staring Into My Soul With Your Face Smooshed Against The Camera As You Talk About Computers Challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)

Arachnids also include scorpians and ticks, so spiders it makes sense humans evolved that way. Perhaps some proto-spider was a lot more dangerous.

Though, jumping spiders are pretty chill and what got me to be less afraid of spiders. They're tiny, they're adorable, they're really friendly, and for some reason they didn't trigger the same arachnophobic response in me. I have a theory that perhaps jumping spiders fed on ticks and other bugs that ancestors of ours might've had, and so we became less afraid of them. Spiders cooperating with other species isn't new, such as the dotted humming frog.

As much as mainstream social media is bad, there are online communities that are strictly necessary for some groups. Banning social media would stop closeted queer youth from participating in communities that would support them. Asking your homophobic parents about queer sexuality, for example, is a one-way ticket to getting your ass out on the street. Asking a community of fellow queer people anonymously is more viable. As toxic as social media can be, it can also be a refuge for good people who need to escape the real world and the consequences of it.

It really is an all-or-nothing approach. Either we make systems that are effective enough to stop everyone, or make them ineffective enough that they can be bypassed.

We should be helping young people navigate, and have a healthy relationship with it. The technology reflects and caters to the negative parts of the society it exists in. The best thing we can do is make the world better in the first place. Body-negativity isn't here because social media decided it must exist, it's because an algorithm decided that appealing to the existing negative thoughts and beliefs of people gets engagement. The only other way to deal with this problem is to dismantle capitalism so that organisations that run these platforms aren't perpetually seeking profit at all costs.

They only support devices a year past their end of life. That's not much better than stock. Other ROMs like DivestOS and Lineage do a better job of long-term support.

It's an absolutely massive instance that's a net negative for the Fediverse. It completely defeats the purpose of federation. The Mastodon devs used to drive people to smaller instances but decided they wanted to be /the/ instance. They made themselves a default in the app. At around the same time other instances started getting a crap ton of spam from them that ate up a bunch of moderator's time on smaller instances. The Fediverse only works in regards to moderation because there is less users per admin, but mastodon.social doesn't have that advantage. A bunch of people defederated from them as a result which was a good thing for the instances that did it. They failed pretty hard at communicating during this time as well.

Having one instance hold a large part of the network is bad for everybody involved. Defederating from monoliths is a healthy thing for networks to do. Building your own web beats any algorithm, can't do that if you're already federating with 99% of people.

I noticed that with Mullvad it's also doing that, I think it might be an anti-spam system?

It's actually insane how fast this port was.