zlacker

> Where does it end? They call out these options as presumably being "safe enough":

Is there any data around why these are safer than the alternatives? Because the article is just a classic case of nerd philosophy; there's _no_ justification of the actual risks involves in these platforms aside from vague anecdotes and analogies, then using these vague anecdotes to drive recommendations.

>>Karrot+(OP)
I don't know, I think you can go ahead and use your best judgment on whether it's riskier for an indie game studio to go all-in on marketing through a social media juggernaut or trying to steer people to channels like a mailing list that they control. This is not a research paper.

I'm sure there's lots to criticize in "nerd philosophy" but an article that boils down to "avoid vendor lock-in" with a cute analogy is just a weird target to choose. If you can't help but read a certain ideological slant onto it and can't possibly understand it separate from that reading, I think that says more about you.

>>Karrot+(OP)
I've seen many examples here in HN about people who have lost access to one of these kingdoms for no good reason or as a result of some weird algorithmic decision.

>>marc_i+qo
I've seen people lose their data on their own blog, forget to renew their domain name and have it takes over by squatters demanding ransom, had their machines hosting Mastadon die on them leaving users high-and-dry, exposing keys to the world and getting their database stolen/dropped... The list goes on. It's not as simple as "kingdom bad, self-reliance good". Hence asking for a cost-benefit analysis.