3 ms·

Then what's the point of the closing line "Find us at https://toot.thoughtworks.com https://toot.thoughtworks.com"?

by phailhaus 4y ago

riffic 4y ago
find me at gmail.com
- phailhaus 4y ago
  It's "email me at gmail.com". The article is about replacing a company's usage of Facebook and Twitter with Mastodon. They then link to their Mastodon instance, as if that's where we can find all sorts of external communication, the kind they'd usually have on Facebook. Nope. As a nontechnical user, I am immediately confused and closed the page without learning anything. The idea that a company could "reach millions of users" with Mastodon is ridiculous.
  - riffic 4y ago
    I can reach millions of users, billions potentially, with WordPress. My WordPress is also compatible with Mastodon since I installed the ActivityPub plugin. I understand the federated social web has a technobabble aspect to it. I am sorry you aren't with it but that's honestly not my problem.
    - phailhaus 4y ago
      And that's exactly why Mastodon will never reach mass adoption. That's my only point: Mastodon is for techies. It is not and will never be a viable competitor to centralized social media. The idea that "companies should run their own Mastodon instances" as a way to replace Facebook is absurd.
      - riffic 4y ago
        not asking for that though. The only thing I'd like to see is for content management systems to adopt the protocol for federation since it's a W3C recommendation. smart media and institutional players will do this
        phailhaus 4y ago
        You're on the wrong post then, because I've been responding to the article which is arguing that companies should switch to Mastodon over traditional social media. This isn't a thread about Mastodon in general.
        riffic 4y ago
        it's a shorthand to say "Mastodon" since no one really knows about the stuff under the hood (ActivityPub and the federated social web) Yes everyone (especially those taking public money) should build AP into their existing web infra like their content management systems. it's a complete failure of policy that all of these public status communications are made into centralized services with hostile ownership. for this, I mean your local police department and fire department, library and mayor and all of those groups.
dredmorbius 4y ago
"toot.thoughtworks.com" is equivalent to "www.thoughtworks.com" or "mail.thoughtworks.com". It's a hostname for a specific service. If you want to see the actual activity on the instance, click through the "See What's Happening" link which takes you to the public view: <https://toot.thoughtworks.com/public https://toot.thoughtworks.com/public> Note that a specific profile's public URL page will be, e.g., https://toot.thoughtworks.com/@mfowler That's the HTTP gateway to the profile "mfowler@toot.thoughtworks.com": <https://toot.thoughtworks.com/@mfowler https://toot.thoughtworks.com/@mfowler> Yes, there are a few concepts to understand. Some six millions of profiles worth of people seem to have worked it out to date.
- phailhaus 4y ago
  You just used the words "HTTP gateway" while trying to explain how to just view a profile. This is an absolute non-starter if Mastodon is going to compete with Facebook or Twitter with nontechnical users. Do you not see how comically user-hostile this is?
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    I'm pitching my explanation to the presumably technical audience of HN readers. This is a world in which people are familiar with webmail (email access through an HTTP gateway), and of both Web- and App-based interfaces to services such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, SnapChat, and Reddit. I'm reasonably comfortable in the thought that whether or not the Great Unwashed Masses think in terms of "HTTP Gateway" or Browser vs. App, they'll work through this particular Sysiphian obstacle without a great deal of effort.
    - phailhaus 4y ago
      Why is Mastodon still hoping that the Great Unwashed Masses will come up with an explanation for the technical guts of their platform? It's been six years and articles still fall over themselves trying to explain what it is, and usually land on a variant of "it's just like Twitter, but more complicated." What I'm getting at is that Mastodon has a serious UX and communication problem, because they're not able to pitch the platform in a way that laypeople would care. Regular people don't care about the merits of decentralization. What matters is the experience, and Mastodon seems to be trying really hard to look as much like Twitter as possible. But that's a death sentence: Twitter is always going to be the best at being Twitter.

Then what's the point of the closing line "Find us at https://toot.thoughtworks.com https://toot.thoughtworks.com"?

riffic 4y ago

find me at gmail.com

phailhaus 4y ago
It's "email me at gmail.com". The article is about replacing a company's usage of Facebook and Twitter with Mastodon. They then link to their Mastodon instance, as if that's where we can find all sorts of external communication, the kind they'd usually have on Facebook. Nope. As a nontechnical user, I am immediately confused and closed the page without learning anything. The idea that a company could "reach millions of users" with Mastodon is ridiculous.
- riffic 4y ago
  I can reach millions of users, billions potentially, with WordPress. My WordPress is also compatible with Mastodon since I installed the ActivityPub plugin. I understand the federated social web has a technobabble aspect to it. I am sorry you aren't with it but that's honestly not my problem.
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    And that's exactly why Mastodon will never reach mass adoption. That's my only point: Mastodon is for techies. It is not and will never be a viable competitor to centralized social media. The idea that "companies should run their own Mastodon instances" as a way to replace Facebook is absurd.
    - riffic 4y ago
      not asking for that though. The only thing I'd like to see is for content management systems to adopt the protocol for federation since it's a W3C recommendation. smart media and institutional players will do this
      - phailhaus 4y ago
        You're on the wrong post then, because I've been responding to the article which is arguing that companies should switch to Mastodon over traditional social media. This isn't a thread about Mastodon in general.
        riffic 4y ago
        it's a shorthand to say "Mastodon" since no one really knows about the stuff under the hood (ActivityPub and the federated social web) Yes everyone (especially those taking public money) should build AP into their existing web infra like their content management systems. it's a complete failure of policy that all of these public status communications are made into centralized services with hostile ownership. for this, I mean your local police department and fire department, library and mayor and all of those groups.

dredmorbius 4y ago

"toot.thoughtworks.com" is equivalent to "www.thoughtworks.com" or "mail.thoughtworks.com". It's a hostname for a specific service. If you want to see the actual activity on the instance, click through the "See What's Happening" link which takes you to the public view: <https://toot.thoughtworks.com/public https://toot.thoughtworks.com/public> Note that a specific profile's public URL page will be, e.g., https://toot.thoughtworks.com/@mfowler That's the HTTP gateway to the profile "mfowler@toot.thoughtworks.com": <https://toot.thoughtworks.com/@mfowler https://toot.thoughtworks.com/@mfowler> Yes, there are a few concepts to understand. Some six millions of profiles worth of people seem to have worked it out to date.

phailhaus 4y ago
You just used the words "HTTP gateway" while trying to explain how to just view a profile. This is an absolute non-starter if Mastodon is going to compete with Facebook or Twitter with nontechnical users. Do you not see how comically user-hostile this is?
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  I'm pitching my explanation to the presumably technical audience of HN readers. This is a world in which people are familiar with webmail (email access through an HTTP gateway), and of both Web- and App-based interfaces to services such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, SnapChat, and Reddit. I'm reasonably comfortable in the thought that whether or not the Great Unwashed Masses think in terms of "HTTP Gateway" or Browser vs. App, they'll work through this particular Sysiphian obstacle without a great deal of effort.
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    Why is Mastodon still hoping that the Great Unwashed Masses will come up with an explanation for the technical guts of their platform? It's been six years and articles still fall over themselves trying to explain what it is, and usually land on a variant of "it's just like Twitter, but more complicated." What I'm getting at is that Mastodon has a serious UX and communication problem, because they're not able to pitch the platform in a way that laypeople would care. Regular people don't care about the merits of decentralization. What matters is the experience, and Mastodon seems to be trying really hard to look as much like Twitter as possible. But that's a death sentence: Twitter is always going to be the best at being Twitter.