
Why I'm leaving Micro.blog - bellebethcooper
http://blog.bellebcooper.com/leaving-microblog.html
======
DevNullDevice
I've never heard of micro.blog before now, but after reading the article, I'm
still not sure what the "problem" is.

I read three major points: Ownership, curation, and diversity. As the latter
two, I feel, require hands-on experience, I'll focus on the first.

For Ownership, the author / OP appear to suggest that content ownership is
about where the content is hosted. From the article (again, never heard of the
service before now), it seems that preserving redirects and letting you create
whatever URIs you want, and therefore move / control content, would suffice.
Am I just missing something?

~~~
mnutt
I also didn't know anything about micro.blog before now, but based on the
article I assumed from the features offered that "creators own the content"
actually means "creators own the relationship with the user" which seems
pretty important. Worst case you could copy-and-paste your content to a
different service, as long as you own the domain.

~~~
geoah
Same here, never heard of micro.blog but the concept and business model seem
sound.

Owning the things you post and having to host them yourself are two different
things. The content is yours, the domains is yours, you pay for someone
serving it for you. Hosting is not free and maintaining it is always a hassle
a lot of savvy people will pay for a service in order to avoid.

Micro.blog seems to be open source, if at some point you don't want to pay any
more, you can always get your data out, setup a server or a rpi, and restore
your data. Nothing lost other than some quality time with some readmes.

~~~
hnarayanan
While I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, micro.blog is not open
source.

------
huebnerob
If you're really interested in owning your own content, it's never been easier
to spin up a site. What all these Twitter clones appear to actually be is
political statements against the social media machine that miss the point
entirely. I can talk to myself anywhere I want for free, what I really want to
own is my audience. And that's a much harder problem to solve.

~~~
DevNullDevice
Again, I haven't heard of this place before, but from the article, it appears
like they offer that through control of domain names?

Certainly there's an argument about the manually-curated feed, but don't know
if that's what you're talking about?

------
wink
The first point rings very true and it's not the first time this hypocrisy has
been pointed out. "People should own their content, but also host on a closed-
source site under a subdomain" \- yes, I think you can use your own domain but
IMHO owning your content without controlling the (hopefully long-living) url
is kinda pointless, it's just a bit better than making a copy/paste backup of
everything you post on Twitter or Facebook.

