5 ms·

Twitter is easier for new users to join. If you aren’t on Twitter and want to be (or have left and want to give it another try), the flow to create a new accoun

Twitter is easier for new users to join. If you aren’t on Twitter and want to be (or have left and want to give it another try), the flow to create a new account is really easy - go to twitter.com, and then the sign-up flow is pretty standard, something almost everyone nowadays is familiar with. Want to join Mastodon? First you have to choose an instance - there are so many to choose from. If you are joining Mastodon because a lot of people you know/follow already have, it makes the choice easier-just join whichever one they are on-but then what happens if it is closed to new registrations? Whereas, if you just heard about this Mastodon thing and want to check it out, a lot of people (especially your average non-technical person) presented with “choose an instance” are going to respond “er, this thing looks too complicated, I can’t be bothered”

rvz 4y ago
> Want to join Mastodon? First you have to choose an instance... This is one of the essential problems that frustrates normal users from moving to another social network. We are yet to talk about the mediocre 'search' function, co-ordinated instance-level bans, rouge moderators, instances shutting down / falling over, etc. Techies love discussing about how complex something is, where as the majority of users do not care especially normal users moving from Twitter to Mastodon which from the looks of it, was no 'mass migration'. As many instances have closed registrations, if the largest instances re-opened them it further defeats the purpose of federation and encourages instance centralization. We haven't even mentioned the strong network effect of Twitter being the major reason why little to no-one other than the 'screaming techies of the Twitter apocalypse' got angry, packed their bags and moved to Mastodon. The event was as if it was a leaf falling out of a tree.
- gcthomas 4y ago
  Want to join Email? First you have to choose a server ... No wonder email failed to thrive as an open protocol, distributed communication system. It's just too darned hard and unfamiliar to figure out how to join.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    want to join email and it's difficult? - you are evidently a tech person living some time before 1997.
  - msm_ 4y ago
    That's why Email is basically centralised now, with most of traffic to/from gmail (and microsoft).
    - gcthomas 4y ago
      It's more centralised now after several decades because monopolistic companies saw commercial value in squeezing out the competition. Plenty of technical folk have given up their own servers because the dominant providers ruined the system by blocking their emails.
  - rvz 4y ago
    > No wonder email failed to thrive as an open protocol, distributed communication system. Do you see normal users setting up their own email servers? I don't. It seems the are all joining centralized providers called Gmail, Outlook, Apple Mail and the like. [0] [0] https://mailchimp.com/resources/most-used-email-service-providers/ https://mailchimp.com/resources/most-used-email-service-prov...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - em-bee 4y ago
    before gmail and the like people didn't choose a server. the majority of email addresses people got from the institutions they were affiliated with. their university, their job, their isp. and when they switched their isp or their job, they also had to switch email addresses. it wasn't until gmail and other independent email services that people actually got to choose. the only exception were those people who got their own domain who either set up their own server or used the email service offered by their registrar. email was already ubiquitous before people even had a choice, and when those choices came available there were only very few because the majority of servers were and still re restriced to the members of the institutions they belong to. so for email paralysis of choice never was a concern
- skissane 4y ago
  > co-ordinated instance-level bans, rouge moderators I think that’s another big issue with Mastodon - poor accountability. I know some are going to view “accountability” as an oxymoron when it comes to Musk-owned Twitter. But, while Musk positions himself as a maverick who couldn’t care less about what the media thinks (and the “mainstream” media especially), it seems likely that their negative feedback played a significant role in the reversal of some of his dumber decisions. His whole “I don’t care what the media thinks” routine resembles the poop emoji with which he responds to their inquiries-such a juvenile response is a sign he really does care about what they say, even if only to a certain degree-if he completely didn’t care, he’d just ignore them entirely, or even have some intern respond promptly with inane non-committal unquotable PR blather So yeah, the media provides some accountability for Twitter, however imperfect-even under Musk. By contrast, the media provides very little accountability for Mastodon-it is very fringe, the average person has never heard of it, why would they pay much attention to it? And its decentralised nature makes accountability by the media potentially even harder, since there’s no Musk to ultimately hold account, just an opaque collective of obscure individuals who wield power behind closed doors Another dimension of accountability is regulatory-for better or worse, social media is an increasing focus of regulatory attention worldwide, and you can guarantee Twitter is near the top of the list. Musk may try to dodge them, but he can only dodge so much, and in many cases (especially those regulatory requests which don’t appear to be associated with his political opponents) he may just comply from the start. By contrast, most regulators are going to ignore Mastodon, because it is too small to merit their attention, and its decentralised nature makes it much harder to regulate. Of course “if you are unfairly banned on one instance you can always move to another”-but that’s at the minimum a major inconvenience, and what about the problem of cross-instance bans? I know they are claimed to be only against the far-right; but even if that’s true, what’s to stop “ban the far-right” from evolving into “ban the moderate right” and then eventually even “ban lefties who deviate too much from the party line”? Yes, that’s a slippery slope argument-but accountability mechanisms play a big role in stopping people slipping too far down life’s many slopes If you trust the average Mastodon administrator is on roughly the same page as you, maybe you don’t have much to worry about; if you lack that confidence, is it still worth investing your time in it? With Twitter, even if you don’t trust Musk to do the right thing, at least you know there are real (however imperfect) mechanisms to hold him to account. The same mechanisms for Mastodon are arguably a lot weaker
hammyhavoc 4y ago
It's no different to email.
- skissane 4y ago
  > It's no different to email. That’s not true. Rather than repeat myself, I’ll just link to my other comment in which I explain why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35579360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35579360

rvz 4y ago

> Want to join Mastodon? First you have to choose an instance... This is one of the essential problems that frustrates normal users from moving to another social network. We are yet to talk about the mediocre 'search' function, co-ordinated instance-level bans, rouge moderators, instances shutting down / falling over, etc. Techies love discussing about how complex something is, where as the majority of users do not care especially normal users moving from Twitter to Mastodon which from the looks of it, was no 'mass migration'. As many instances have closed registrations, if the largest instances re-opened them it further defeats the purpose of federation and encourages instance centralization. We haven't even mentioned the strong network effect of Twitter being the major reason why little to no-one other than the 'screaming techies of the Twitter apocalypse' got angry, packed their bags and moved to Mastodon. The event was as if it was a leaf falling out of a tree.

gcthomas 4y ago
Want to join Email? First you have to choose a server ... No wonder email failed to thrive as an open protocol, distributed communication system. It's just too darned hard and unfamiliar to figure out how to join.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  want to join email and it's difficult? - you are evidently a tech person living some time before 1997.
- msm_ 4y ago
  That's why Email is basically centralised now, with most of traffic to/from gmail (and microsoft).
  - gcthomas 4y ago
    It's more centralised now after several decades because monopolistic companies saw commercial value in squeezing out the competition. Plenty of technical folk have given up their own servers because the dominant providers ruined the system by blocking their emails.
- rvz 4y ago
  > No wonder email failed to thrive as an open protocol, distributed communication system. Do you see normal users setting up their own email servers? I don't. It seems the are all joining centralized providers called Gmail, Outlook, Apple Mail and the like. [0] [0] https://mailchimp.com/resources/most-used-email-service-providers/ https://mailchimp.com/resources/most-used-email-service-prov...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- em-bee 4y ago
  before gmail and the like people didn't choose a server. the majority of email addresses people got from the institutions they were affiliated with. their university, their job, their isp. and when they switched their isp or their job, they also had to switch email addresses. it wasn't until gmail and other independent email services that people actually got to choose. the only exception were those people who got their own domain who either set up their own server or used the email service offered by their registrar. email was already ubiquitous before people even had a choice, and when those choices came available there were only very few because the majority of servers were and still re restriced to the members of the institutions they belong to. so for email paralysis of choice never was a concern
skissane 4y ago
> co-ordinated instance-level bans, rouge moderators I think that’s another big issue with Mastodon - poor accountability. I know some are going to view “accountability” as an oxymoron when it comes to Musk-owned Twitter. But, while Musk positions himself as a maverick who couldn’t care less about what the media thinks (and the “mainstream” media especially), it seems likely that their negative feedback played a significant role in the reversal of some of his dumber decisions. His whole “I don’t care what the media thinks” routine resembles the poop emoji with which he responds to their inquiries-such a juvenile response is a sign he really does care about what they say, even if only to a certain degree-if he completely didn’t care, he’d just ignore them entirely, or even have some intern respond promptly with inane non-committal unquotable PR blather So yeah, the media provides some accountability for Twitter, however imperfect-even under Musk. By contrast, the media provides very little accountability for Mastodon-it is very fringe, the average person has never heard of it, why would they pay much attention to it? And its decentralised nature makes accountability by the media potentially even harder, since there’s no Musk to ultimately hold account, just an opaque collective of obscure individuals who wield power behind closed doors Another dimension of accountability is regulatory-for better or worse, social media is an increasing focus of regulatory attention worldwide, and you can guarantee Twitter is near the top of the list. Musk may try to dodge them, but he can only dodge so much, and in many cases (especially those regulatory requests which don’t appear to be associated with his political opponents) he may just comply from the start. By contrast, most regulators are going to ignore Mastodon, because it is too small to merit their attention, and its decentralised nature makes it much harder to regulate. Of course “if you are unfairly banned on one instance you can always move to another”-but that’s at the minimum a major inconvenience, and what about the problem of cross-instance bans? I know they are claimed to be only against the far-right; but even if that’s true, what’s to stop “ban the far-right” from evolving into “ban the moderate right” and then eventually even “ban lefties who deviate too much from the party line”? Yes, that’s a slippery slope argument-but accountability mechanisms play a big role in stopping people slipping too far down life’s many slopes If you trust the average Mastodon administrator is on roughly the same page as you, maybe you don’t have much to worry about; if you lack that confidence, is it still worth investing your time in it? With Twitter, even if you don’t trust Musk to do the right thing, at least you know there are real (however imperfect) mechanisms to hold him to account. The same mechanisms for Mastodon are arguably a lot weaker

hammyhavoc 4y ago

It's no different to email.

skissane 4y ago
> It's no different to email. That’s not true. Rather than repeat myself, I’ll just link to my other comment in which I explain why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35579360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35579360