4 ms·

Maybe adoption isn’t the goal. Just a thought…

by rcme 3y ago

cpill 3y ago
of course it is.
- NegativeK 3y ago
  There's no reason federated social media has to adopt the exponential growth or die mentality. Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And they can continue on just fine.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And this is exactly why the current idea of "fediverse" was not only dead on arrival but is just as dead 7 years down the (counting from Mastodon's release date which is the most popular implementation). People just want to communicate, they don't know nor care about the technical details. They know that if they ask the person they just met at the bar for their Instagram they will find them on Instagram. Same deal for Twitter, Snapchat & TikTok. For the fediverse however, the water gets murkier and the outcome isn't guaranteed because of the above (and many other technical details). (the only guaranteed outcome is that nobody is going to embarrass themselves mentioning "Mastodon" outside of a tech conference) If you need other reasons why I consider Mastodon and the current implementation of "fediverse" DOA, see my previous posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
    - LexiMax 3y ago
      Yikes. I was half expecting you to end that last sentence with a contemptuous "NERRRRRRRRRDS!!!"
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. Btw, I say this as a nerd & tech guy that hates ad-supported social media and wishes for a better alternative, but the current iteration "fediverse" is not it, for many different reasons besides branding which I've written about previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
        LexiMax 3y ago
        > The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. I don't think Mastodon even makes the top 25 of most cringeworthy social media parlance when "tweet" continues to be the reigning champion since 2006.
- SamWhited 3y ago
  It's not. In so far as you can assign a "goal" to a network as diverse as the fediverse, many services (maybe most?) started out as a way to specifically get away from the growth mindset of giant corporations. The fediverse was initially popularized among the queer and trans communities as a way to remain safe from giant platforms that do a bad job moderating where they would be harassed all day. These are the people who made the fediverse what it is, and they could not have done the same on a giant billion-user platform like Facebook. Somewhere smaller and more intimate is easier to moderate, and keeps people safer. The point isn't rapid growth, or adoption, it's organic growth that doesn't outpace our ability to keep our users safe.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
drdaeman 3y ago
Adoption as in numbers to please some department or board (or even a lone server owner) probably isn't. Not in general. Adoption as in getting more and more interesting people posting and talking? Probably yes, because if it's not then I suppose I don't get what the heck this could be all about.
- rcme 3y ago
  Think about a physical community, perhaps the area where you live. Do you really want the population of your neighborhood to 10x? Population size changes the characteristics of a place. Sometimes, you’re content with the way things are.
  - drdaeman 3y ago
    If not for the physical space constraints (crowded streets) - I suppose I do. More folks around means more opportunities, more diversity. Even if I won't interact with 99.9% of them, why would I be against a possibility that they'll bring something more I might like to the table? I mean, unlike in physical world, no one can shove anything up my face unless I'm specifically in a mood to see what else is out there. The beauty of distributed digital landscapes (as opposed to corporate-ran walled gardens) is that you're in more control of how it works and what you see. When there's no central hub, there is no land to fight for - I don't have to see the giant concrete anthills of dense cities, the space I see is configured to my preferences. And of course I would like to have more options of what to read and whom to talk to, than less. Even though I'm unlikely to consume any of this Instagram content (it's just not my thing). So, I don't quite get this "barbarians at the gate!" thing. But then I don't get the idea of Fediverse servers as some sort of communities either - to me having a shared server is just an unfortunate consequence of technical limitations making it's highly impractical a true distributed system. I really don't want to care what server something or someone is on.

Maybe adoption isn’t the goal. Just a thought…

by rcme 3y ago

Maybe adoption isn’t the goal. Just a thought…

cpill 3y ago

of course it is.

NegativeK 3y ago
There's no reason federated social media has to adopt the exponential growth or die mentality. Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And they can continue on just fine.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > Some federated bubbles will want to, but plenty of others won't. And this is exactly why the current idea of "fediverse" was not only dead on arrival but is just as dead 7 years down the (counting from Mastodon's release date which is the most popular implementation). People just want to communicate, they don't know nor care about the technical details. They know that if they ask the person they just met at the bar for their Instagram they will find them on Instagram. Same deal for Twitter, Snapchat & TikTok. For the fediverse however, the water gets murkier and the outcome isn't guaranteed because of the above (and many other technical details). (the only guaranteed outcome is that nobody is going to embarrass themselves mentioning "Mastodon" outside of a tech conference) If you need other reasons why I consider Mastodon and the current implementation of "fediverse" DOA, see my previous posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    Yikes. I was half expecting you to end that last sentence with a contemptuous "NERRRRRRRRRDS!!!"
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. Btw, I say this as a nerd & tech guy that hates ad-supported social media and wishes for a better alternative, but the current iteration "fediverse" is not it, for many different reasons besides branding which I've written about previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=“Nextgrid”%20“mastodon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
      - LexiMax 3y ago
        > The fact that the fediverse crowd see nothing wrong with naming a social network "Mastodon" implies "NERRRDS" without having to even mention it. I don't think Mastodon even makes the top 25 of most cringeworthy social media parlance when "tweet" continues to be the reigning champion since 2006.
SamWhited 3y ago
It's not. In so far as you can assign a "goal" to a network as diverse as the fediverse, many services (maybe most?) started out as a way to specifically get away from the growth mindset of giant corporations. The fediverse was initially popularized among the queer and trans communities as a way to remain safe from giant platforms that do a bad job moderating where they would be harassed all day. These are the people who made the fediverse what it is, and they could not have done the same on a giant billion-user platform like Facebook. Somewhere smaller and more intimate is easier to moderate, and keeps people safer. The point isn't rapid growth, or adoption, it's organic growth that doesn't outpace our ability to keep our users safe.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

drdaeman 3y ago

Adoption as in numbers to please some department or board (or even a lone server owner) probably isn't. Not in general. Adoption as in getting more and more interesting people posting and talking? Probably yes, because if it's not then I suppose I don't get what the heck this could be all about.

rcme 3y ago
Think about a physical community, perhaps the area where you live. Do you really want the population of your neighborhood to 10x? Population size changes the characteristics of a place. Sometimes, you’re content with the way things are.
- drdaeman 3y ago
  If not for the physical space constraints (crowded streets) - I suppose I do. More folks around means more opportunities, more diversity. Even if I won't interact with 99.9% of them, why would I be against a possibility that they'll bring something more I might like to the table? I mean, unlike in physical world, no one can shove anything up my face unless I'm specifically in a mood to see what else is out there. The beauty of distributed digital landscapes (as opposed to corporate-ran walled gardens) is that you're in more control of how it works and what you see. When there's no central hub, there is no land to fight for - I don't have to see the giant concrete anthills of dense cities, the space I see is configured to my preferences. And of course I would like to have more options of what to read and whom to talk to, than less. Even though I'm unlikely to consume any of this Instagram content (it's just not my thing). So, I don't quite get this "barbarians at the gate!" thing. But then I don't get the idea of Fediverse servers as some sort of communities either - to me having a shared server is just an unfortunate consequence of technical limitations making it's highly impractical a true distributed system. I really don't want to care what server something or someone is on.