in reply to @minecraft's post:
Yeah, it's been said to death at this point, but there's a point where it definitely crosses from "We didn't include these features because they encourage a toxic social media environment" to "We didn't include these features out of personal dislike or didn't want to implement them before going public and we're making it a feature and not a bug".
The whole argument for a lot of the shuttered-off approach to social media design in the name of nebulously "discouraging harassment" or "preventing toxicity" sort of just...falls apart once you realize that most of the excluded features are really non-issues when it comes to harassment. I can excuse not having direct messaging on launch, but it's definitely not a primary vector for harassment when you could just...send logged out anon asks with embedded media up until recently, and block avoiding is practically an intended feature (don't take that at face value, the idea that blocking can't be account-scoped in order to prevent "identifying people's side pages" is just stupid). None of the real issues this site has actually experienced were solved by any of these exclusions of content, so why not just fix what's broken and add what isn't?
And going back to the original topic of anti-social design, yeah, it's exactly what it says on the tin. There aren't really any problems being solved by not having private follower counts or not showing all of the shares or comments on a post. The latter one could maybe be excused on launch as a technically-complex feature, but if I could replicate it completely client-side than it can't be that hard.
And don't get me wrong, I still use cohost first and foremost as just a place to mess around with friends, but there's no proper excuse for why the UX shouldn't be better.
> "we didn't implement these features in order to discourage harassment and toxic behavior"
> implements anon asks
