Because let’s say you’re Tom Hanks. And you get TomHanks@Lemmy.World
Well, what’s stopping someone else from adopting TomHanks@Lemm.ee?
And some platforms minimize the text size of platform, or hide it entirely. So you just might see TomHanks, and think it’s him. But it’s actually a 7 year old Chinese boy with a broken leg in Arizona.
Because anyone can grab the same name, on a different platform.
I presume I’m supposed to care, but I dont, and I don’t know why anyone would.
The other night 337K people all registered to vote, simply because Taylor Swift sent one message on instagram.
People come to the platforms FOR the celebrities. And that’s just ONE celebrity. The more celebrities on the platform, the more fanbases come with it.
But celebrities are picky. If they think something will hurt their image, they won’t do it. Even if theres minimal chance it hurts their image. They have to be protective.
So they need assurance that when they post something, there’s zero chance someone else could be posting “as them”. Ironically enough, that was the original purpose of twitters blue checkmark.
Fuck the celebrities. They aren’t your people, peers, or friends. They adopt platforms only when they determine they can make a buck from it. They’re the kids that break your new toys, and you’re suggesting we keep inviting them over to play.
They will only bring enshittification. Having a platform that isn’t celebrity friendly is a boon.
With the celebrities come their followers. Which is like 97% of the world. I’m trying to get that 97% to adopt the fediverse.
But they don’t come on their own. They go where their celebrities go. The celebrities bring content for their followers to consume.
You’re arguing quantity over quality. I do not care the least for bootstrapped growth at the detriment of the platform. I also do not care about people who idolize and platform hop in order to follow celebrities. I suspect very few will bring with them value beyond increased traffic.
If you want this, Reddit is still an option available to you.
Quantity is quality, if you have good filters in place.
I never understood people that argue something is bad by looking at the median case. The problem of Reddit, Twitter and Facebook is not due to the amount of people they have, and they were absolutely fine until they tried to exploit their userbases.
(Aside for @blaze@feddit.org: see what I mean about Fedi’s anti-growth and reactionary culture? Our friend here is not an isolated case)
It’s more against having celebrities and their followers coming here en masse, which I get.
I’ve still seen a few comments mentioning “organic grow” which seems indeed healthier
“oh, I want it to grow, I just don’t it want to grow with people that I don’t like”
You can dress it however you want, it’s still elitist, reactionary and exclusive.
That’s the example used by OP to make their point. Just from a technical perspective, how are instances supposed to handle 300k new users overnight?
To come back to your usual argument, do you expect those hundreds of thousands of new users to get a Communick subscription? Or to even support the hosting costs of the instances they would use?
deleted by creator
I’m not your buddy, guy!
Right now Lemmy has something like 16K users, and a few hundred instances. Most of which are small instances hosting less than 10 users.
What I’m suggesting is a few hundred thousand instances, with millions of users, if not billions.
And I assume the instances would face a point where they need organization. So certain instances start hosting certain types of content.
So if you personally don’t want to read on home and garden topics, you don’t read those instances. That’s what I’m suggesting. If you want to stick to your small corner of the fediverse, you do that.
What you’re suggesting is that the fediverse never expand beyond the people you deem worthy of contributing content.
I tried to give peer-tube a chance. None of my youtube creators are producing content on peer-tube. I gave up when every single instance I found was just linux content.
With more celebrities bring more content. With more content brings more users. With more users brings more communities, and more niches.
I’m trying to bring down reddit, and instagram, and youtube, and twitter, and everything else thats considered social media. In its place, social media will default to the fediverse.
You on the other hand are trying to keep the fediverse from growing.
47k https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/dailystats
That’s probably more of a monetization issue than anything related to peertube. If your job is making Youtube videos, then at least some portion of your income is AdSense. Sure, it’s not what it was, but at scale it’s not nothing, and the peertube alternative is… $0.
(Also, for the non-commercial ones or the ones that are funded outside of Youtube, maybe ask if they’ll use Peertube. I’ve had luck with a couple of people I watched being willing to upload to multiple platforms, but you don’t know if you don’t ask.)
I can’t ask, because years ago I watched a video on twitter. It was funny. I tweeted “That killed me”.
I was banned for inciting death threats by an automod.
They’ve never heard of mastodon.
And unless I just have no idea where it is, youtube doesn’t seem to have a direct messaging system. Everything these days is twitter.
So I’m trying to change that.
Does this person have a patreon or something similar? Could sign up and then ask there. Or leave a youtube comment on a recent video sharing your email address.
Heck, I might risk creating a new youtube account over VPN just to ask in a public youtube comment for peertube (so if YT bans the account for mentioning peertube, it’s no loss to me, and the creator has still gotten the message).
Makes sense if this was years ago, back when it was younger and less wide spread… I also imagine you just heard and saw this, but didn’t directly ask because, well yeah.
You’re right. I see no more intrinsic value in having 1mil users, versus 15k. And nothing you can say is likely to convince me that quantity determines or makes for a valuable platform. We’ve seen the growth mentality and resulting corporate greed destroy numerous platforms already.
Except in this case, there can be no corporate green to destroy the fediverse. They can build and destroy their own instance, and their own communities…but the very nature of the fediverse is that it scales well, and it CAN’T be owned. So growth can only help. Temporarily it may crash the servers with more traffic than it can handle, but more instances and servers will be added, and the userbase will spread out.
This is sounding like don_dickle2.0
I like that everyone knows that person
Was Don_Dickle banned or something?
No no, pretty sure he’s still around
Oh. That’s good. I’m a fan of his contributions to Lemmy for sure.
Funny thing of note, when he first started posting, I thought he was a girl. Not sure why. But for like 2 days I assumed Don was a woman.
celebrities and their cult need to be culled. we don’t want swiftys here lame losers listening to some 40 something year old singing about heartbreak. grow up
No one should give a fuck if celebrities are here
I think you have forums confused with microblogs.
@Lost_My_Mind let’s be honest, 99% of celebrities will use threads unless there’s a more popular and better designed activitypub alternative (spoiler: it wont happen for YEARS), so accounts will be centralized for 98% of people and the question about username is for now useless