Written by @kissane@mstdn.social

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      I think the hype is driven by people that just want Twitter without Elon and realized the Fediverse is not that. I know that by saying so I somewhat sound like the people that the article is criticizing, but I think people that want Twitter without Elon are missing a big part of the picture, i.e that Twitter was and is bleeding money fast, so “their” Twitter was going to die one way or the other.

      To build a sustainable platform you need to invest in it. People in the Fediverse have done so, but are painfully aware that it is a careful balance and that it can’t work with millions of Twitter users switching over expecting a gratis platform with no strings attached.

      And this failure to understand these basic dynamics will probably drive them into the hands of yet another venture capital funded fly-trap and the circle will begin anew.

      • anders@rytter.me
        4·
        1 year ago

        @poVoq @sexy_peach I think a fediverse can house both types.
        those who dont want to pay to have an account on a server (which obviouslly costs money to host), then some instances can show ads on their webinterfaces and fund their costs that way. people who dont care about ads can join such instance and have their free account.

        those who dont like ads can either donate or pay for their account or join a free server without ads (if available) or host their own server.

        • poVoq@slrpnk.net
          41·
          1 year ago

          IMHO you can’t fund a service with meagre normal banner advertisement revenue anymore.

          Someone wishing to fund a Fediverse service would have to write a deep data-mining system that displays personalized and targeted advertisement to their users and get sufficient investment to survive until they have a large enough user-base and scale for their data-mining to turn a profit.

          Not impossible, I guess, but given the invasive nature of said data-mining they would probably be defederated quite quickly (if found out) as in a federated network you can’t cleanly separate whom’s data gets mined.

    • E. Chang 🏳️‍🌈@mstdn.social
      2·
      1 year ago

      @sexy_peach @koncertejo And that’s the rub, right? #Bluesky is supposed to be #federated but it only federates with itself and it will only federate in the future with entities that use its proprietary protocol (i.e. its vassal states). So, how is this anything but just another walled garden beholden to corporate interests? I do like the idea of nomadic identity, but it doesn’t mean anything until/unless Bluesky starts talking to other services.

  • anji@lemmy.anji.nl
    101·
    1 year ago

    Good post. On the other hand, IMHO (as a non-Fedi-expert I should say), I think the Fediverse does not absolutely need to appeal to everyone. A lot of people are happy with Twitter, and a lot of people are happy with Facebook. Evolving Mastodon into a clone of Twitter is perhaps missing the point of building a different platform in the first place. Not to say there’s no place for new ideas or criticism of course…

    To add after reading the post again: A centralized social media site with a professional content moderation team is, of course, always going to provide a better experience to new users. I don’t think a decentralized platform will ever be able to compete, by design. “Full text search” and “quote posts” are not going to help when someone accidentally joins a poorly moderated instance.

    • Montag@kbin.social
      5·
      1 year ago

      I agree. I hate Twitter but really enjoy Mastodon, because of the people and content it draws (at least what I see).

      I want the Fediverse to walk a fine line between providing a platform that interests a niche group without gatekeeping and which sustains enough interest to sustain itself.

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
      3·
      1 year ago

      I respectfully disagree with some of your points. The benefit of a Twitter clone that is federated (or more precisely, a Twitter clone that supports activityPub) is that the users of said Twitter clone can see content from and interact with users who aren’t on said clone, but another platform that supports activityPub. And conversely, I can see content from said Twitter clone without necessarily having to be on it, as long as I use some activityPub platform that fits my taste.

      This provides a lot more choices. I can choose a platform with the best user experience for my taste, without any regard to privacy and moderation. That would be completely fine. Conversely, another person may choose to search for an instance based on their specific moderation, topics, privacy, or other preferences. Another person may even self host their own instance. All of those can interact with each other, and that is what makes it nice.

      • anji@lemmy.anji.nl
        4·
        1 year ago

        Sure. I’m a big fan of federation. However, I switched to Mastodon (the ActivityPub application) because I liked its style better than Twitter. Turning Mastodon into Twitter to attract a larger audience and placate the complainers isn’t necessarily what everyone wants. Just my personal view on this. But it honestly doesn’t bother me that much.

        The signup/moderation issue feels somewhat similar. Yeah, it would be way more Twitter-like if signup defaulted to Mastodon.social and that mega-instance hired a content moderation team to rival a professional social media site. But that’s not quite what I think is currently good about Mastodon and Fedi…

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
          3·
          1 year ago

          On that part, I do agree with you. I do not like mastodon just because I’m not a huge fan of the micro-blogging-focused user experience, but I do agree that there’s value in a platform not imitating Twitter but having some of the UX. Likewise, I think that there is value in another platform that would attract Twitter users. I think it could just be a separate mastodon instance that is modified to fit said user base.

  • maegul@lemmy.ml
    8·
    1 year ago

    So far, it seems, there’s a curious absence of commentary on what I feel is the core of the article: the fediverse’s UX problems.

    I suspect the consensus answer here will be the chaos and complexity are the point and that anything more would probably entail antithetical centralisation (??).

    But still, I think it’s worth considering what could be done about hard and broad UX issues and the trade offs against any goals the fediverse might have

  • anders@rytter.me
    5·
    1 year ago

    @koncertejo Some people are already working on making Fediverse compatible with Bluesky. So if we can interact with them from here, then I dont care what people prefer.

  • Oliver@lemmy.caDeutsch
    2·
    1 year ago

    I have a suspicion that a lot of the defensive maneuvering on Mastodon is happening because Mastodon fans know that the network absolutely cannot compete on user friendliness and basic social functionality, so they’re leaning hard into the things it does get right—and then, in some cases, trying to shame people into not even thinking about trying a competing network.

    Exactly this. Eugen is damn late with his announcement to address the needs of potential users and finally get Mastodon out of that musty nerd bubble.

    People are criticizing him like hell for implementing features that have been in the Fediverse (Pleroma, Friendica, etc.) for ages - and are missing from Mastodon, scaring the hell out of a lot of people only to turn it into a secluded island. I’m really tired of seeing Mastodon like an idealistic island in development that, on the other hand, sabotages the needs of social networking users in the 21st century wherever it can.

    Not interested in Bluesky at all, but it’s about time Mastodon became usable for the regular Soccer mom without fifty browser-extensions.

    the longer Mastodon stays in Linux-on-the-desktop mode, the more likely those people are to take their energy somewhere where it’s valued.

    💯