4 ms·

>1. Among other things, because of a dead-simple user experience that lets even grandpa post content after a few clicks. Federation, if it adds any level of com

>1. Among other things, because of a dead-simple user experience that lets even grandpa post content after a few clicks. Federation, if it adds any level of complexity past the grandpa UX, would defeat the goal. That's the point though, design for the lowest common denominator has been the modus operandi for the giants because it gets them the most profit. There is no proof that this is the way to create the most "useful" social network. Often I'm tired of the "organic spam" that users with easy access create non-stop in a lot of the communities I'm in. A technical barrier to entry isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case.

dalbasal 6y ago
Being networks, a fundamental definition of "usefulness" is directly (or exponentially, rather) related to the size of the network. It's not the only aspect of value, but it is exponential, ad hard to beat. One of the reasons amoral commercial efforts like fb won is because this modus operandi happens to harmonize standard commercial MO with what a network is. There's definitely value in alternative MOs. As you say, a technical barrier to entry can have its uses. Wikipedia is a nice example. I don't think simplifying the editor UX to an intuitive one would necessarily be useful. But wikipedia needs a throttle on editing. I'm not sure this relates to federation though. Niche communities don't need to be federated.
- HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
  >a fundamental definition of "usefulness" is directly (or exponentially, rather) related to the size of the network. It's not the only aspect of value, but it is exponential, ad hard to beat. No that is not true. Judging from my experience with various subreddits anything above 100k quickly becomes trash. You don't need as many users as possible. >One of the reasons amoral commercial efforts like fb won is because this modus operandi happens to harmonize standard commercial MO with what a network is. For what facebook wants to be i.e. a profile for all your contacts that is indeed the case. For hobby/activity related communities that's not true. >I'm not sure this relates to federation though. Niche communities don't need to be federated. It does relate to federation because right now if I open a new subreddit I am bound to the wishes of the company and they can change the UI in such a massive way that any community that benefits from long-form text posts quickly dysfunctional. I have noticed the gradual decline in content and comment quality on reddit since the redesign and the push for mobile app usage and it's slowly creeping into every subreddit out there. With a federated alternative to reddit I could launch a server on my own and have control over how the community evolves over time( or rather, people who have the community's best interests in mind can in general). I hope someone takes what Mastodon does and make a reddit alternative.
Jetrel 6y ago
I do sympathize with the argument (I've made it myself, in the past), but ... ... the problem with that is there are a lot of damned smart people who are good at what they're good at precisely because they view "wrangling tech" as a complete waste of their time. Artists and musicians are a really good example, and are the key reason I use Twitter (pretty much the entire indie game industry lives on that platform), but this principle also extends to doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, historians, practically everyone in all the sciences, trades, and humanities ... except computer programmers. I've had aspirations towards being a polymath, and one of the bitter things I've learned about the programming-autodidact death march is how much of what someone learns isn't important fundamental knowledge, but is just byzantine details that will evaporate half a decade later when the software in question goes obsolete. It's excruciating to waste time learning something like that (which will become worthless) when I could be learning core programming fundamentals -- or could be learning something in a different field like drawing that will stay valid for the rest of my life. I was a desktop developer looking-in-from-the-outside at web development, and I timed my entry into the field specifically to avoid the hot mess that was the API differences between netscape (yes, Netscape Communicator 4.5) and IE 6 at the time. As a programmer with enough of a nose for bad code smell, I took one look at that and thought to myself "this is completely insane." I could have knuckled down, busted the books and gotten all those api minutiae down just pat. Just in time for jQuery (or future browser versions) to show up and render them irrelevant forever. It wasn't insane because it was a mess - it was insane because it was definitely going to go away, and soon. And once it did go away all the time I'd spent learning and mastering it would have been utterly wasted, sure - but wasted at the expense of not doing something else that's more important. That's time I could have spent learning the piano. Or a foreign language. Now - not all programming is like that - eventually you've gotta bite the bullet and decide something's "good enough to get the job done". Many tech stacks actually end up in a nice sweet spot where they're coherent enough to learn quickly, and stable enough (in the sense of an API) to get out of the way and let you approach long-term projects without the ground shifting under your feet. But if you just blindly vacuum up proficiencies as they come off the treadmill you'll quickly discover you're doing nothing else with your life. -- This is the relation most humans have with tech. Especially the smart ones who are really into something else. It's a means to an end - and can work wonderful magic. But it demands a price.

dalbasal 6y ago

Being networks, a fundamental definition of "usefulness" is directly (or exponentially, rather) related to the size of the network. It's not the only aspect of value, but it is exponential, ad hard to beat. One of the reasons amoral commercial efforts like fb won is because this modus operandi happens to harmonize standard commercial MO with what a network is. There's definitely value in alternative MOs. As you say, a technical barrier to entry can have its uses. Wikipedia is a nice example. I don't think simplifying the editor UX to an intuitive one would necessarily be useful. But wikipedia needs a throttle on editing. I'm not sure this relates to federation though. Niche communities don't need to be federated.

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
>a fundamental definition of "usefulness" is directly (or exponentially, rather) related to the size of the network. It's not the only aspect of value, but it is exponential, ad hard to beat. No that is not true. Judging from my experience with various subreddits anything above 100k quickly becomes trash. You don't need as many users as possible. >One of the reasons amoral commercial efforts like fb won is because this modus operandi happens to harmonize standard commercial MO with what a network is. For what facebook wants to be i.e. a profile for all your contacts that is indeed the case. For hobby/activity related communities that's not true. >I'm not sure this relates to federation though. Niche communities don't need to be federated. It does relate to federation because right now if I open a new subreddit I am bound to the wishes of the company and they can change the UI in such a massive way that any community that benefits from long-form text posts quickly dysfunctional. I have noticed the gradual decline in content and comment quality on reddit since the redesign and the push for mobile app usage and it's slowly creeping into every subreddit out there. With a federated alternative to reddit I could launch a server on my own and have control over how the community evolves over time( or rather, people who have the community's best interests in mind can in general). I hope someone takes what Mastodon does and make a reddit alternative.

Jetrel 6y ago

I do sympathize with the argument (I've made it myself, in the past), but ... ... the problem with that is there are a lot of damned smart people who are good at what they're good at precisely because they view "wrangling tech" as a complete waste of their time. Artists and musicians are a really good example, and are the key reason I use Twitter (pretty much the entire indie game industry lives on that platform), but this principle also extends to doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, historians, practically everyone in all the sciences, trades, and humanities ... except computer programmers. I've had aspirations towards being a polymath, and one of the bitter things I've learned about the programming-autodidact death march is how much of what someone learns isn't important fundamental knowledge, but is just byzantine details that will evaporate half a decade later when the software in question goes obsolete. It's excruciating to waste time learning something like that (which will become worthless) when I could be learning core programming fundamentals -- or could be learning something in a different field like drawing that will stay valid for the rest of my life. I was a desktop developer looking-in-from-the-outside at web development, and I timed my entry into the field specifically to avoid the hot mess that was the API differences between netscape (yes, Netscape Communicator 4.5) and IE 6 at the time. As a programmer with enough of a nose for bad code smell, I took one look at that and thought to myself "this is completely insane." I could have knuckled down, busted the books and gotten all those api minutiae down just pat. Just in time for jQuery (or future browser versions) to show up and render them irrelevant forever. It wasn't insane because it was a mess - it was insane because it was definitely going to go away, and soon. And once it did go away all the time I'd spent learning and mastering it would have been utterly wasted, sure - but wasted at the expense of not doing something else that's more important. That's time I could have spent learning the piano. Or a foreign language. Now - not all programming is like that - eventually you've gotta bite the bullet and decide something's "good enough to get the job done". Many tech stacks actually end up in a nice sweet spot where they're coherent enough to learn quickly, and stable enough (in the sense of an API) to get out of the way and let you approach long-term projects without the ground shifting under your feet. But if you just blindly vacuum up proficiencies as they come off the treadmill you'll quickly discover you're doing nothing else with your life. -- This is the relation most humans have with tech. Especially the smart ones who are really into something else. It's a means to an end - and can work wonderful magic. But it demands a price.