3 ms·

You cannot find me on Mastodon

18 points by brentroose 4y ago

beardicus 4y ago
> You're not owning your Mastodon servers — at least not the ones that are actually large enough to matter what does "large enough to matter" even mean here? plenty of folks run single-user instances with no issues.
comex 4y ago
If you want ultimate control, it’s fully possible to self-host a Mastodon instance with yourself as the only user. I follow one person who does this, and I’m considering doing it myself, just so I won’t have to worry about the server I’m on getting overloaded or having downtime. (If my own server goes down it’s something I can fix, and it won’t get overloaded with a single user.) You can of course still follow and be followed by users on other instances, so unless you’re making a lot of use of the local timeline, it doesn’t make much difference where you’re hosted. Edit: To be fair, if most people following you are on the same server, you’re still vulnerable to disruption if that server shuts down, or bans you for some reason. Personally I think it’s best for people to spread out across a variety of servers, even within a single subcommunity.
- techdragon 4y ago
  Came here to say this. Basically if you are worried about control in the Mastodon ecosystem (as a general issue, not specific technical flaws or vulnerabilities)... you didn't really understand it. Not an insult, its complicated, and a lot of information right now is a variation on the theme of "pick from these big existing sites/people who run mastodon so you can bail on twitter right now with very little effort" If your worried about privacy, or control, or anything else like this. Just look at running your own self hosted Mastodon instance... Thats. The. Point. Of. Decentralised.
- dchest 4y ago
  There is also microblog.pub (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145095) which is much simpler and can interact with Mastodon.
- sc68cal 4y ago
  If you run your own instance, how do you get federated? Because isn't it the case that you have to have a federated instance in order to be followed by people on another instance? Basically, sure you can run your own instance of Mastodon but nobody will be able to follow you until you convince a big instance like mastodon.social to federate your one person instance
  - g_p 4y ago
    My understanding is that this is the "elephant in the room" right now on federated social platforms. I set one up as an experiment, and the "out of box experience" wasn't great - there was no equivalent of a default set of servers to pull content in from to fill the federated feed, so there's no real content discovery to get you started. That might be a design choice to avoid a centralised "default" server, fair enough - let's proceed. Assuming you (or another user on your server) follows some users from other servers, their content then shows up on the "federated" feed. Only posts or re-shares by those users, not anything else from the federation. From what I see, the only way to really get "seen" in the federation (since there's no other users on your own server) is to interact with and reply to others' posts (or follow them), and some may choose to follow you, since otherwise they won't know your server exists. I am not sure that you can "federate" an instance in the way you allude to - there's an option to set up relays, but I've never really seen much written about these. It strikes me that to support a network of federated servers, there is still a need for "many-to-many" relaying, in order to help bootstrap a new server instance and get some content in from the wider world. Maybe all of this is "by design", but I do worry with some of these platforms that we risk creating more isolated echo chambers - it feels like there's a gap at the moment in the setup which makes it more sensible to be a member of a big "centralised" popular instance (like mastodon.social), which then takes everything back to where it all began with a single centralised platform!
    - eternalban 4y ago
      > we risk creating more isolated echo chambers Isolated echo chambers may be an improvement, overall. What's toxic about flat social spaces is that conversations gets reduced to fights between the most vocal, thoughtless, or aggressive holders of opinion X and !X. And this influences the acceptable modes of social behavior. It leaks to real life and institutions. It is corrosive. First assumption made is that echo chambers do not exist in twitter. This seems to be based on a somewhat patronizing view of humanity that excludes the possibility of willful affinity and choice by the individual, and posits an environmental basis for opinion formation. You can easily dissuade yourself of this by picking a hot divisive topic, choose your side, and follow tweets. You will be in an echo chamber on Twitter. So I propose we consider the two distinct goals that seem to get conflated in these discussions: Goal 1: promote uniformity of acceptable opinion du jour. Goal 2: prevent the poisoning of general social norms, discourse, and institutions by the ideological warfare on social networks. The latter goal 2 appeals to my sensibilities. And post Elon acquisition, most seem to be lamenting the loss of political control over Twitter (goal 1).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

18 points by brentroose 4y ago

> You're not owning your Mastodon servers — at least not the ones that are actually large enough to matter what does "large enough to matter" even mean here? plenty of folks run single-user instances with no issues.

comex 4y ago

If you want ultimate control, it’s fully possible to self-host a Mastodon instance with yourself as the only user. I follow one person who does this, and I’m considering doing it myself, just so I won’t have to worry about the server I’m on getting overloaded or having downtime. (If my own server goes down it’s something I can fix, and it won’t get overloaded with a single user.) You can of course still follow and be followed by users on other instances, so unless you’re making a lot of use of the local timeline, it doesn’t make much difference where you’re hosted. Edit: To be fair, if most people following you are on the same server, you’re still vulnerable to disruption if that server shuts down, or bans you for some reason. Personally I think it’s best for people to spread out across a variety of servers, even within a single subcommunity.

techdragon 4y ago
Came here to say this. Basically if you are worried about control in the Mastodon ecosystem (as a general issue, not specific technical flaws or vulnerabilities)... you didn't really understand it. Not an insult, its complicated, and a lot of information right now is a variation on the theme of "pick from these big existing sites/people who run mastodon so you can bail on twitter right now with very little effort" If your worried about privacy, or control, or anything else like this. Just look at running your own self hosted Mastodon instance... Thats. The. Point. Of. Decentralised.
dchest 4y ago
There is also microblog.pub (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145095) which is much simpler and can interact with Mastodon.
sc68cal 4y ago
If you run your own instance, how do you get federated? Because isn't it the case that you have to have a federated instance in order to be followed by people on another instance? Basically, sure you can run your own instance of Mastodon but nobody will be able to follow you until you convince a big instance like mastodon.social to federate your one person instance
- g_p 4y ago
  My understanding is that this is the "elephant in the room" right now on federated social platforms. I set one up as an experiment, and the "out of box experience" wasn't great - there was no equivalent of a default set of servers to pull content in from to fill the federated feed, so there's no real content discovery to get you started. That might be a design choice to avoid a centralised "default" server, fair enough - let's proceed. Assuming you (or another user on your server) follows some users from other servers, their content then shows up on the "federated" feed. Only posts or re-shares by those users, not anything else from the federation. From what I see, the only way to really get "seen" in the federation (since there's no other users on your own server) is to interact with and reply to others' posts (or follow them), and some may choose to follow you, since otherwise they won't know your server exists. I am not sure that you can "federate" an instance in the way you allude to - there's an option to set up relays, but I've never really seen much written about these. It strikes me that to support a network of federated servers, there is still a need for "many-to-many" relaying, in order to help bootstrap a new server instance and get some content in from the wider world. Maybe all of this is "by design", but I do worry with some of these platforms that we risk creating more isolated echo chambers - it feels like there's a gap at the moment in the setup which makes it more sensible to be a member of a big "centralised" popular instance (like mastodon.social), which then takes everything back to where it all began with a single centralised platform!
  - eternalban 4y ago
    > we risk creating more isolated echo chambers Isolated echo chambers may be an improvement, overall. What's toxic about flat social spaces is that conversations gets reduced to fights between the most vocal, thoughtless, or aggressive holders of opinion X and !X. And this influences the acceptable modes of social behavior. It leaks to real life and institutions. It is corrosive. First assumption made is that echo chambers do not exist in twitter. This seems to be based on a somewhat patronizing view of humanity that excludes the possibility of willful affinity and choice by the individual, and posits an environmental basis for opinion formation. You can easily dissuade yourself of this by picking a hot divisive topic, choose your side, and follow tweets. You will be in an echo chamber on Twitter. So I propose we consider the two distinct goals that seem to get conflated in these discussions: Goal 1: promote uniformity of acceptable opinion du jour. Goal 2: prevent the poisoning of general social norms, discourse, and institutions by the ideological warfare on social networks. The latter goal 2 appeals to my sensibilities. And post Elon acquisition, most seem to be lamenting the loss of political control over Twitter (goal 1).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]