I remember for a brief time Google offered up names, addresses, and phone numbers in their search results. Then after like a year (maybe less?) people decided to get freaked out over it. They offered a way to opt out, then just removed it entirely.
I also remember back in the 90s, my mom and stepdad buying a 7 disc set of phone numbers and addresses. No idea why they did it... But it was a thing.
I'm not arguing that Twitter is a good platform; I left it back in November for Mastodon and I've been happy with the switch. And if publishers want to run accounts labeled as "articles by Person A" and "articles on Topic B", (to essentially make them user-friends feeds, instead of asking newbies to learn how to add RSS,) I think that's great!
I'm just saying if a journalist (or any creator really,) is going to be active on social media, that it's worth to work for the best interest as much as possible. Cultivating their circle on a neutral (between them and their publisher) platform is better for them than working exclusively on a platform owned by their publisher, locking in everything they do socially there. Be that Mastodon, IG, or whatever fits them and their style.
I absolutely get you; you'd think companies would want this. However employees probably shouldn't want this. It's generally probably better for them that they work for their own brand when possible, so I'm hesitant to suggest this become a thing.
The fear is a practice called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (or EEE). It's been used by tech companies before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
It, in theory, could work like this:
Meta embraces ActivityPub in its tech in an attempt to garner good will and make it easy for users to transition to Threads.
Meta extends on ActivityPub by saying "oh we're just adding a few things that make this better for our users (on our service) but we're still supporting ActivityPub!
Meta then extinguishes ActivityPub support, and severally hobbles AP, after they secure enough users to be happy and think AP offers no real competition anymore.
Then the enshittification process begins, by moving the focus from users to other interests (usually advertisers) at the expense of users. And eventually to the platform owners, at the expense of advertisers. Though I guess they'll skip the middle step, being a public company?
I would be curious about the feasibility of a "performance mode" that was basically "reboot you into a "single program" mode". I assume it would be unreasonable given so much software relies on the tools modern OSes provide, unless the software itself was made with this in mind.
You'd imagine some giant like Adobe would figure out a way to run dedicated machines, given they have so much software that uses lots of resources. But then, as best as I would find it for games, I imagine most people don't want to give up alt-tabbing to their web browsers.
Edit: Besides. The real benefits would hit until you were coding to the metal anyway, right? Assuming that's still feasible too.
I absolutely don't get what my parents have to do with oil barons, but okay.