deleted by creator

Thanks, I got it for my birthday.

Sadly no. On the one occasion I did open one of the cards, there was no return address. Otherwise I’d have been going round for a plate like Jamal and Wanda on Thanksgiving.

One year I did actually open one of the cards, but as predicted there was no return address, or even surname, so no chance of getting back to them.

So as much as putting “No longer at this address” as has been suggested would probably stop me getting the cards, the senders would never know because the cards can’t be traced back.

This way, those wishing the Jarvis’ season’s greetings year after year can continue to happily wish them well, oblivious to the fact that they lost touch over a decade ago.

The Jarvis family probably have a different opinion though, and question why they never get Christmas cards from these people despite sending their own every year. Should have given them a forwarding address then shouldn’t you? Clearly you’re not that disappointed to lose touch if you couldn’t be arsed to update them, you boring-surnamed fucks. Merry Christmas.

That’s put me right off my brew.

But what if the Jarvis family do still live here, and I just can’t see them? Maybe I’m a Jarvis? 😱

1. Party venue in pub conference room.
2. Arrived 30 minutes prior to the start time of our party.
3. Brought some token decorations to make it look like we’d made some effort.
4. We brought a single small balloon.
5. There was obviously a party the night before, celebrating a 60th of some kind.
6. Pub owners hadn’t removed the decorations from previous party.
7. We didn’t want to dispose of the original balloons in case their owners wanted to collect them and weren’t able to previously.
8. The 60 balloons sat there the whole time during our party.
9. Previous party organisers made us look like the absolute amateurs we are.
10. MILDLY infuriating.
11. Bonus extra item: nobody actually cared, just thought it was comical, emphasised by the placement of the 70th balloon, where each set of balloons is in direct proportion to the amount of sentiment held for the celebrant.

Unfortunately we only rocked up half an hour before the party started, but that would otherwise have been a good idea.

That or just a piece of paper to the right of it with “+10” written on it.

Onboarding. The fact that you have to choose an instance to join while creating an account is essentially forcing people to make a decision for which, unless they’ve done some reading, they’ll have no idea of the implications. It’s such a weird concept for new users - they have to know about a thing before they’ve had experience with a thing.

Even if it doesn’t really matter which instance you begin with, the experience will be different, and there’s a sense of “pressure” at the point of signup, which doesn’t exist outside of the Fediverse.

The article is about transitioning from Instagram to Pixelfed, i.e. it’s targeting people who already use Instagram. If an individual is an Instagram user already, then privacy clearly isn’t a consideration for them, and if it was, there are countless articles already regarding Meta’s approach to their data that don’t need to be recycled here.

If your concern is your data, then yes, don’t trust anyone but yourself. As has been said, there’s alternatives for that, including self-hosting.

Pixelfed’s advantages aren’t limited to potential privacy features though, which I agree would have been excellent items to raise in the article, such as a focus on photos and a complete lack of any algorithm forcing tailored content at you. But this is a how-to article, not a feature comparison. I’m sure we’ll see a prevalence of those in the future but it’s still early doors. I would argue that it literally does imply that Pixelfed is more privacy focused though - it’s right there in the title.