Skip to main content


The Mastodon centralists are coming out of the woodwork today with, “But it makes onboarding easier!”

So what?

The goal here isn’t to grow for the purpose of growth. Growth, in and of itself, is meaningless.

The goal is to decentralize social media.

Mark reshared this.

in reply to Chris Trottier

There’s such a thing as growth by subtraction.

What I mean by this is that if you want Mastodon to grow, you must be cognizant that Mastodon can’t be all things to all people.

To me, the promise of Mastodon is decentralization. Therefore Mastodon shouldn’t be the service for centralists.

That is, people who are looking for an exact replica of Twitter—corporate structure and all—should probably not use Mastodon.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

History shows that shovelling people into one server and then saying, “Let’s explain to them about decentralization later” doesn’t work.

Most people will never care about decentralization. They just want to chat with their friends.

This will become more and more true as Mastodon gains popularity.

So it’s better to force people into making a choice at the outset. Yes, it’s annoying and causes friction. Many people find making any decision whatsoever to be “difficult”.

And that’s fine.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

People are now conflating centralization with “accessibility”.

No, these things are not one and the same.

Alt text on images is accessibility.

Defaulting everyone onto one server is not accessibility.
in reply to Chris Trottier

Centralization does not make Mastodon “accessible” to so-called “regular people”.

Centralization turns Mastodon into Tribel, Hive, and Post.

Centralization takes everything unique about Mastodon and destroys it.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

Let me tell you, if centralization of Mastodon is your goal, then basically every microblogging platform that exists right now is blowing it out of the water!

You should probably sign up for those services instead.
in reply to Chris Trottier

I am so scared that mastodon.social could be acquired that I have set up plenty of my own Fediverse servers—on multiple domains—just in case.

This isn’t paranoia. It’s the sane thing to do.

And if you can, you should probably do it too.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

Also, don't use the word "mastodon" in the domains, because it is owned by the same people as mastodon.social:

https://social.growyourown.services/@homegrown/110258609698780262

If there was a sale of mastodon.social, the trademark might be sold with it, and they could start changing the terms of use for anyone using a domain with the word "mastodon" in it.


If you are creating your own server on here, don't use a domain name with the word "mastodon".

The word "mastodon" in relation to social networks is a registered trademark owned by Eugen Rochko's Mastodon gGmbH organisation.

If you use a domain name which includes the word "mastodon", this obliges you to obey these terms laid down by Eugen's organisation:

https://joinmastodon.org/trademark

For example, this would potentially make it illegal to switch to software unapproved by Mastodon gGmbH.


in reply to Chris Trottier

People seem to think this is about "free and open source" idealism.

But I don't care about "free and open source" if the net effect is centralization.

Google uses lots of "free and open source". It is a monopoly.
in reply to Chris Trottier

We need open decentralised ownership as much as open decentralised software.

Ownership isn't decentralised if everyone's on one server.
in reply to Chris Trottier

Ironically, the people who are in favour of Mastodon’s centralization are, themselves, “free and open source” idealists.

They believe the AGPL is a magic bullet to ward off everything that can go wrong with Mastodon.

If everyone arrives at mastodon.social, it’s okay—you have the source code!

Reddit was once free and open source too. It is now a centralized walled garden.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

there is no end to the possible enshittification processes, no matter how free and open the source code itself is.
in reply to Chris Trottier

Decentralization has nothing to do with idealism.

It has everything to do with being clear-eyed and practical.

On the contrary, believing that Twitter is the “public square”—despite being owned by surveillance capitalists—that is idealism!
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

Wow, I've never stumbled upon a toot from you I think, my feed is not much linked to Mastodon.social accounts. You are on fire tho, this thread is on point! 👌
in reply to Chris Trottier

If a person is so committed to distributed social media that she/he sets up their own Feduverse server, what is the use, as you advise, of setting up multiple servers?

Isn't one server even better for one administrator to support a decentralized system?

Because with only one server, you can concentrate all your efforts, monitoring, marketing on one server, giving better results (more users) than when that attention is divided along several servers.
in reply to Chris Trottier

please could you link me up on how to do this? Or a doc link that could help? Thanks!
in reply to Chris Trottier

Why haven't you moved away from mastodon.social? I mean, using your own servers and start posting there and stop posting here?

Currently to promote decentralization we can have a policy where you have to move off a server when you reach a certain number of followers?
in reply to Chris Trottier

we can't set up our own servers, but we've purposely aimed to find a few smaller instances that aren't hundreds of thousands of users large.
in reply to Chris Trottier

the decentralized nature of Mastodon is what really keeps me coming back. I started on a larger more general purpose server, but I eventually migrated over to shakedown, and that’s made all the difference.

I love that I’ve found a community of like minded music lovers, and I can still bring all of the other interesting voices I follow into my timeline together!
in reply to Chris Trottier

I love that it takes effort to get here because it filters out 90% of the entire world.

People climb mountains because the conversation is better at the top. By and large the only people up there are skilled, respectful, smart, and actually want to be there a lot.

This is exactly the same reason I decided to go to college
in reply to Chris Trottier

What if they're looking for usable documentation so they can participate
in reply to Chris Trottier

here, here! we got rid of a lot of dead weight when we migrated from Twitter. The quality of interaction is much higher here on Mastodon. Don’t focus on the quantity of followers. Find a conmmunity of people to contribute to. support it financially (pay the people administering your server) and with your time through interaction. Chasing a certain number of followers is a fools errand. People need to stop worrying about being in exactly the same place as everyone else
Unknown parent

jan 🦣
The "normal users'" feedback has been clear: too complicated. Mastodon is on the right track to focus on simplicity.
Why is it, that open source tech projects so often get lost in complexity and miss the usability focus?
Calm down and allow various perspectives.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to jan 🦣

@jnbrgr Because this isn't about "open source" -- it's about decentralization.

Usability is fine when it serves the objective of decentralization.
in reply to Chris Trottier

@Chris Trottier It isn't about decentralization per se. It's about a very limited understanding of decentralization which actually boils down to a late-1990s approach of "decentralization just by having smaller centralized systems connected to each other" - as in individual servers having accounts on it, accounts that are heavily tied to these servers and pretty hard to move elsewhere. We see these problems if we look at, in example, how incredibly complex it would be to support migrating posts from one Mastodon account to another. Personally, I am sure decentralization and usability aren't per se mutually exclusive. But the _current_ approach of decentralization and usability are (_because_ of that strong ties betweeen account and instance, and because of the importance choosing an instance has in this process), and if we want decentralization to succeed, we'd better strive for solutions that have sane decentralization irrevocably while _still_ being usable even to the most non-tech user you could possibly imagine. Right now we're doing pretty much the opposite.

@">jan :mastodon:
in reply to Kristian

@z428 @jnbrgr Yes, it is. It's entirely about decentralization.

Usability is fine so long as it creates the conditions for decentralization.

If it doesn't serve the purposes of decentralization, "usability" doesn't matter. In fact, such "usability" efforts are unusable.
in reply to Chris Trottier

@Chris Trottier Couldn't disagree more. At the very end, social networks are tools that should serve some sort of purpose, and they should first and foremost focus on meeting the functional requirements of this purpose. No one would use a system just because it's "decentralized" even while it doesn't get the job done, and actually we have a lengthy track record of centralized platforms outpacing decentralized ones simply because they worked for people (Slack vs IRC, WhatsApp vs XMPP, ...).

Decentralization, privacy, usability, ... are "just" nonfunctional requirements. They're all important, most likely they're equally important, but first and foremost it should be a system that works for users, otherwise it won't be used by a reasonable amount of people. Maybe decentralization is just poorly designed if it breaks usability at the moment.

@">jan :mastodon:
in reply to Kristian

@z428 @jnbrgr

Functional requirement number one: Nobody owns my data but me, nobody can change the system from under me, nobody can put unblockable adverts into my feed, nobody at all owns the network.

There are other requirements after that, but that is the prime directive in this federation.
in reply to Adam Dalliance

@Adam Dalliance Why, in this case, not simply use some computer with your data stored in a markdown file offline? If it's just about owning your data in a way so no one can interfere with them, and if this is the only requirement, then why bother putting them online at all? 😉 That's what I mean: Despite all these (totally relevant and undisputable) requirements, isn't it first and foremost about making data available, visible to, interactable with for others?

@Chris Trottier @">jan :mastodon:
in reply to Kristian

@z428 @jnbrgr

I didn't say it was the only requirement, in fact I explicitly said there are other requirements too.

Just that the ownership of my data and the non-ownership of the network are the prime ones.

I'll get a Bluesky account one day probably, but not until I can run my own server.
in reply to Adam Dalliance

I think most of my friends who are leaving Big Social are indeed doing so by just keeping their diary offline instead. Most of them aren't moving elsewhere, they're just quitting.

Maybe a few private Whatsapp groups that I'm not invited to.
in reply to Adam Dalliance

in reply to Kristian

@z428 @pre @jnbrgr If they don’t see the point of decentralization, don’t push people onto Mastodon. It’s good enough if they merely quit Twitter.
Unknown parent

Chris Trottier
@jnbrgr @z428 @pre On the contrary, pushing growth for growth’s sake is the tail wagging the dog.

What does it matter if everyone uses Mastodon if Elon Musk, or someone like him, ends up owning it?

I’d rather use a social network that no one uses and owned by no one than a social network used by everyone and owned by one rich asshole.

In fact, that’s why I used Mastodon for many years!
Unknown parent

Chris Trottier
@z428 @pre @jnbrgr Nonsense. They can move to email. They can pick up a phone. They can send a text message. They can decide to simply not help surveillance capitalism.

If they want social media that can’t be bought by Elon Musk, well, time to learn about the benefits of decentralization.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

@Chris Trottier Then why discuss this at all? The decentralized Fediverse will remain just what it used to be before Musks Twitter. Maybe Musk at some point will buy a bigger instance which will render this _instance_ more "centralized" again. Why bother? It won't change anything for you and the way you want to use Mastodon, would it? You still can run your own instance, you can block the large ones, you can move your account elsewhere and take your contacts with you. Why not simply ignore it? Why argue against how other use this system, then...? (No offense intended - I really don't understand it at this point...)

@Adam Dalliance @">jan :mastodon:
in reply to Kristian

@z428 @pre @jnbrgr I discuss this because the end goal is for decentralized social media to replace Big Social. That’s the goal.
Unknown parent

jan 🦣
Next escalation level of such a decentralization dogma would be to only allow access to the Fediverse to users on self-hosted instances and abandon the user-concept at all. Insane.
The maximum I can accept is an approach like the default maximum users setting on Pixelfed. And even this is VERY questionable as any instance can simply close for new registrations when THIS instance decides to do this.
Welcome culture & maximum freedom to co-exist with different approaches is essential!
in reply to jan 🦣

@jnbrgr Inevitably, I would love for everyone to run their own server, or use social media on a peer-to-peer basis.

To me, the Fediverse is a stop gap.
in reply to Chris Trottier

There's a threshold beyond which the network is ideologically pure but also unused by the masses. Then it becomes a nerd haven. World doesn't need more nerd havens.
in reply to Chris Trottier

this is the thing, yes centralisation does make it easier for newcomers but it also fundamentally changes Mastodon that would be a departure from the original intention.
Centralisation in and of itself isn’t necessarily bad, but Mastodon is not meant to be a straight replacement for Twitter, instead it’s its’ own thing. The lack of centralisation may not suit everyone but that’s ok, there are other options out there.

I’m getting used to Mastodon now and finding it valuable to me
in reply to Chris Trottier

as long as a solution depends on servers it depends on being subsidized. Bluesky and Mastodon and all these client-server based solutions are half steps on the road to a fully symmetrical #p2p network, where the foundation that developers build on doesn’t require a rent-seeking landlord — this is what Socket Runtime is now capable of providing https://github.com/socketsupply/socket
in reply to Chris Trottier

Honest, curious question; not being a pedantic dickhead.

In this thread whenever "mastadon" is mentioned by someone, is it in direct reference to Mastadon, or referring the fediverse in general?

I think the synonyminization of mastodon/fediverse is part (most?) of the reason for this sorta thing.
in reply to Chris Trottier

Yep, totally true. But I think the entire fediverse should have search. I cannot find my friends on Mastodon, except when they are on mastodon.social.

That's something that is truly lacking: discovery. People can opt-out if they don't want to be discovered.
in reply to Chris Trottier

💯 There’s nothing “gatekeeping” about letting people browse and choose the instance that’s right for them
Unknown parent

eshep
Okay, so having come into this a bit late, maybe that's where I'm confused. So the argument is why mastodon.social and not another/any mastodon instance then? That seems to me like the same, or at least very similar, centralization focus.
in reply to Chris Trottier

@Chris Trottier After all these years: The goal should be to make decentralized social media usable for Jane Doe; it already worked well for the crowd that applauds (and understands) the current idea of decentralization. For Jane Doe, all too often the issue isn't about decentralized social media being "better" or "worse". The problem is they don't find their people in and discourse groups in there, and part of that problem is their people actually aren't here yet. Shouldn't be the idea to make the network grow for the sake of making it usable for people for which it currently has no use? Do we want to have a a decentralized network just for the sake of it?
in reply to Kristian

@z428 the first thing that needs to be done is talk to NON-tech users.

We had this discussion a bit ago. I remember someone went into the whole detailed idea of how people choose an email server. It was a very techy answer. How non-tech people choose a server is "Hey my friend uses gmail, guess I will go with that." Same thing with the Fediverse. How do non-tech people really thing, not how tech people think non-tech should think.
in reply to Kristian

@z428 The goal is to build social media that cannot be bought or sold by one entity or person such as Elon Musk.

And how to achieve that? Through decentralization.

How do we not achieve that? By centralizing Mastodon onto one server so that it can be acquired by an Elon Musk.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

@Chris Trottier No. We solve that by providing an easy onboarding for users to get here in the first place (instead of giving up immediately and staying where Musk and friends already are), by providing them with real incentives to move to different instances (like, "if you're a photographer, photog.social might be interesting for you"; "if you're into metal music. metalhead.club might be interesting for you", "if you live in Dresden, dresden.network could be your crowd", ... - mere "move to a small server to prevent servers from becoming too big" is a pointless incentive for most people), and by making this migration as seamless and straightforward as somewhat possible (post migration, anyone?). On a closer look, maybe the issue you're outlining, too, is addressed way better by more "sane" approaches of decentralization, like not binding accounts to individual instances all too much (talking Hubzilla / nomadic identities).
in reply to Kristian

Your push for centralization ignores the elephant in the room: what does it matter if everyone leaves Twitter when Elon Musk could theoretically buy mastodon.social and now own a significant part of the Fediverse?

Is “easy onboarding” worth that very real possibility?
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

@z428 because the protocol allows people to move to a new server.

you're saying all this pro federation subjective feelings stuff while using the largest server of them all.
in reply to yawnbox :verified_gay:

@yawnbox @z428 Yes, I use mastodon.social. I also use peerverse.space, atomicpoet.org, and calckey.social.

I’m in multiple places being active. And when I’m on mastodon.social, my purpose is to talk about the importance of the Fediverse.
in reply to Chris Trottier

@yawnbox @z428 Why don't you leave mastodon.social? Have 1 post like this as an announcement, then move to a smaller server, redirect your followers there, and use that account to answer questions/replies of others. And just stop posting/commenting here.

You can make a new account in a new, very small server, and posting about the importance of the Fediverse. Aren't we proud that we can talk to anyone regardless of the servers? You can be a prime example yourself.
in reply to nhan

I have a purpose on being on mastodon.social, just like I have a purpose on being on calckey.social.

See, the great thing about the Fediverse is that I can be in many places at once.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Chris Trottier

@yawnbox @z428 What I'm saying is you can make yourself a good and encouraging example for people to follow: leave when your server is too big. You have a large number of followers, so you can set a very good example of being in many places at once and can still talk to people, that leaving on the Fediverse is easy and by leaving you're contributing to the health of the Fediverse.
in reply to nhan

@nhan @yawnbox @z428 Leaving on the Fediverse is not easy. In fact, for accounts that have my amount of followers, it’s expensive. There’s the further matter of mastodon.social being the most federated server on the Fediverse. And there’s also the matter of if I were to leave mastodon.social, it would be to relocate on my own server.

But I also prefer atomicpoet.org to have another purpose.
in reply to nhan

@yawnbox @z428 If you're still here or any other big server and telling people to not come there, it's giving a *very* weird vibes, a kind of hypocrisy. The experience of using mastodon.social is *much* better than using a smaller server. Saying it's just as good everywhere else is deceptive and can turn away new users (https://mastodon.social/@nhan/110222576212477948). If you're still here, what people are hearing is "You should not come here but it's totally fine for me to be here because I was here first"
in reply to nhan

@nhan @yawnbox @z428 I also run calckey.social, calckey.art, peerverse.space, vancity.social, atomicpoet.org—and others.

I’m doing my part for decentralization.
Unknown parent

Kristian
@GhostOnTheHalfShell Agreed. But it would also require to be clearer here and allow for "communities" to be bigger (technically). Like photog.social in example. If that's the instance I'd like to join as a photographer or person interested in photography, I'd like to join this instance. I'd accept this community to reject me if I don't seem to meet their ideas or values. But: If that instance that resembles my community ideas the best is "full" and prevents me from signing up merely because of that, that would be another piece of bad experience / bad usability. And that again feels like the bad / fuzzy / vague distinction between "server = community" and "server = technical structure". 😑️
in reply to Chris Trottier

@gednet yes but, easier onboarding increases the accessibility of the platform. Of my IRL family, friends, etc., I’m the only one who kept using Mastodon (or other ActivityPub-based platforms) and didn’t go back to Twitter or other walled gardens, because it was not accessible to them. Picking a server, feeling like they got the wrong one once they saw the content vs. the description, inability to take their content to a new server along with their social graph, and the outright hostility of some folks saying they shouldn’t expect Mastodon to fill the same role for them as Twitter.

I don’t want to advocate centralization-in-the-name-of-accessibility, because I agree that centralization is not the future. How I wish we had actual account portability, so that accounts started on a big server (or the “wrong” server) could cleanly move their social graph AND content to server that better fit them.
in reply to Kristian

Mastodon’s on-boarding should take these unique features into account. Because pushing everything into one server also seems to be making a problem of its own.

Instances are staffed and funded by individual and groups and that essence needs to be made apparent. Servers at capacity should be flagged or cataloged as such; maybe what is needed is a way to help people spawn new ones as a consequence (hint. hint.)

so a mechanism to draw people in an help generate mastosprogs..
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

@GhostOnTheHalfShell (... or maybe help users chip in money, ressources, ... to make sure "instances" for a particular community can be scaled better...?😉️ Generally, I see the idea of asking communities for feedback, help, support, ... way less common than one would expect. )
Unknown parent

eshep
@GhostOnTheHalfShell, couldn't the same problem be solved simpler and on a larger scale by introducing people to the fediverse vs introducing them to mastadon?

Maybe instead of advertising "joinmastodon.org" and arguing about why/how it needs to change, maybe point people to places like the following:
https://fediverse.party
https://fediverse.observer
https://fedidb.org/software
Each of these sites provides them with different styles of useful information about why Mastodon would be a better fit for them than Misskey or Pleroma, or why they may enjoy Diaspora over an ActivityPub option. Maybe Lemmy is the one that stands out for them.

Does presenting folks with alternate mastodon instances not create a similar problem to presenting them with a single one, given there are many other options to choose from outside of mastodon?
in reply to Chris Trottier

We really do need a quote tweet function and the first person to design a widget to cross post to the various platforms all at once will make a mint.
in reply to Chris Trottier

Fix that by improving migration to move (or at least duplicate) past posts as well, and make it easier. Then if people move to the big instance first it will be much easier for them to move later.
in reply to Chris Trottier

seems like anyone(s) could build an/many onboarding service(s) designed to make it easy for the fedi-curious to land on an appropriate server (for them). Puzzles me that I don’t hear more about this. The fedi service doesn’t need to be centralized, and likewise there could be many “travel agent” services to get people on some fediverse instance.
in reply to Chris Trottier

Or as a favorite writer of mine put it, "growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell."
in reply to Chris Trottier

I’m all for decentralization but worry mastodon doesn’t seem to have a plan for enabling smaller instances to access trending posts on larger ones. I’ve set up multiple accounts so I can check out the “Posts” under “Explore” on each server. Even across the larger instances, they differ. Is there any effort to aggregate trending posts and their replies across all instances?
Unknown parent

Chris Trottier
@arinbasu1 @yawnbox @z428 @nhan It’s not that I don’t want people to join mastodon.social, it’s that I don’t want this to be the default server.

If people are choosing to come here after being shown numerous options, then good.
in reply to Chris Trottier

This is merely a thought “experiment”, how might it be if we had something like “calckey.social” back in this time last year, when many people were leaving twitter in search of better alternatives, and we had people coming over to Mastodon but then ended up either not using or leaving because some of them found Mastodon to be confusing to use, and anytime people brought up the issue of Fediverse, these users would say Fediverse is too confusing (conflating Fediverse with Mastodon).

In hindsight, seems to me that if they discovered the power of #Fediverse with something like calckey.social, they would have stayed on. Sadly, although there was pleroma/misskey/calckey/foundkey, none of these gained the kind of user base that’d have been helpful to “spread” the fediverse around, 🙂 Mastodon is great but there is definitely room for others.

Mark reshared this.

in reply to Arindam Basu

@Arindam Basu I think we don't need a thought experiment for that to be honest. We had that. There used to be similar instances for Diaspora, GNUSocial an other platforms before. But I think we never systematically tried to figure out what exactly Mastodon did different compared to them in order to gain that kind of attraction and momentum. One thing, for _sure_, is that Mastodon started out with a good client API and had mobile apps very quickly (something Diaspora and Friendica - natively at least - don't have yet to date). But I doubt this is the only reason. Maybe another difference "simply" is that Mastodon, starting from day one, spent much more energy and time on identity and "marketing" of the whole solution? I definitely sign one of the statements posted somewhere in this thread reading that, in order to reach a wider audience, we need to stop thinking like tech-people think of that audience but actually look at and talk to the intended audience. So far, most of the FLOSS projects do bad to disastrous at that.
@Chris Trottier @christopher :verified_gay: @nhan
in reply to Arindam Basu

I try to encourage every new fediverse visitor to consider both the interface and mission statement (ideals/rules) before finally settling down somewhere. That poor initial experience combined with misunderstanding, gives people a bad view of the fediverse as a whole. I really try my best to inform every newcomer that they will still be able to interact with anyone from other instances no matter where they decide to hang their hat. That interoperability seems to be the hardest part for newcomers to understand. There's not much they have to relate that concept to outside of email or mobile phone provider.
in reply to eshep

in reply to Kristian

good thing email always works %100 of the time and doesn’t suffer from spam filters. I never have to deal with tickets where a user claims he/she never got their confirmation email despite my server logs showing it delivered. Corporate run networks are entirely transparent about moderation and the appeals process is widely known to be robust and fair. /s

give me a break
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to joel b

@joel b I've been doing that stuff (handling corporate mail for a mid-sized organization) since the late 1990s and yes, there's a load of things that just could break here as well. That's why I didn't write "it works 100%" but rather "you can be reasonably sure it works" (and I _mean_ exactly that). 😉️ With e-mail I've seen interesting effects too, but all these years I rarely stumbled across situations where things got completely lost and no one had a clue where or how.

@Chris Trottier @christopher :verified_gay: @eshep @Arindam Basu @nhan
in reply to Kristian

I wish I shared your experience. Where do you find these users who are not clueless?

I can say in my ~6 months of running my own pleroma instance as a hobby that I have not noticed any trouble in my message delivery.
in reply to joel b

in reply to Kristian

in reply to joel b

in reply to Kristian

all of those valid reasons indicate why it’s going to be hard to get it right. Nothing worth the effort is ever easy. I don’t see any other option though. Every community is different and must enforce it’s own standards. We cannot continue to allow the very richest and powerful to retain so much control.
in reply to Kristian

@z428 @yawnbox @eshep @arinbasu1 @nhan @skotchygut I don’t know how anyone can agree with Dennis Schubert when Diaspora is effectively dead. Diaspora has had 13 years to validate their approach, and it clearly hasn’t worked.

If Diaspora integrated with ActivityPub, it would be alive and well instead of another project with wasted potential.
in reply to joel b

in reply to Chris Trottier

in reply to Kristian

The approach your talking about has already been tried. That’s the approach Diaspora took. Diaspora failed.

And this is because the approach that you’re talking about doesn’t allow for new, novel, and innovative approaches to social media.

People don’t want mere clones. They want something fresh and new.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Kristian

I started my FOSS adventures in 1997 as soon as I could get my own computer that wasn’t shared by the rest of the family. I also remember those heady days though I was still quite young.

To attempt to answer your question I think such a standard will, in time, emerge from what we build today. It’s very difficult to nail the right design tradeoffs that will work for everyone. Far more so when we don’t get the benefit of a benevolent dictator who can ram thru a solution, for better or for worse.

I am okay with this tortoise and hare race because I know the closed systems will always disappoint and collapse around the egos of those who attempt to dominate them. It takes a village to raise a protocol.
in reply to Chris Trottier

in reply to Kristian

@z428 The Diaspora approach is wrong because, at the end of the day, they talk to no other social network except for Friendica—and even that was met with outright hostility by Diaspora developers. Mike Macgirvin, who began Friendica, can tell you all about the numerous conflicts with Diaspora regarding interoperability with a protocol they made.

But mostly, it’s wrong because Diaspora has painted themselves into a corner. The service is stuck in an old Facebook paradigm.
in reply to Kristian

@z428 I don’t know where you’re hanging out, but I’m seeing lots of innovation on the Fediverse. Misskey has a radically different feature set from everything else. Bonfire is likewise excellent. As slow as Mastodon is in development sometimes, the fact I can edit my posts, then track those edits is fantastic.

None of this would be possible with Dennis Schubert’s approach to development.

Diaspora once had 650,000 accounts. Hardly any are active anymore. Why is that?
in reply to joel b

in reply to Chris Trottier

@Chris Trottier The point is not Diaspora. The point is that either you want to build a standard (by pinning down how things are expected and specified to work) or you don't. This doesn't have anything to do with being stuck in an old Facebook paradigm, and I also don't applaud D*s interoperability policy here, but every piece of software engineer in me agrees with the approach that interoperability either is a design goal - or it isn't. Same for usability or predictability in behaviour. Everything else is just "move-fast-and-break-things", and actually the fact a lot of people are complaining about (that Mastodon with its "understanding" of ActivityPub and its widespread adoption these days practically "dominates" how "the Fediverse" data representations look like) is a direct consequence of this way of drafting specifications. It just could have done way better.
in reply to Chris Trottier

@Chris Trottier Ok, if Misskey and Bonfire (both are good platforms) are "innovations", we don't need to any further discuss that I guess. Editable posts have been around in other platforms (open ones too) for quite a while as well... .

As for Diaspora. The core issue I see here is that essentially at some point things didn't move forth anymore because developers didn't care about working on / contributing to Diaspora anymore. It's always much more enticing to start something anew than working on an "old" platform (as in "a platform built and driven by someone else"). And this is one of my bigger gripes with all this situation.
in reply to Kristian

@z428 Of course things can be done better but have you ever heard the phrase “Perfect is the enemy of good?”

Well, that applies to decentralized social protocols too.

Diaspora is so focused on everything being “just so” that they won’t talk to anyone. And that’s a problem.

A protocol isn’t merely about defining what stuff does. More importantly, it’s a gentleman’s agreement that delivery systems will be on good behaviour when a message gets sent.

Not ideal, but good.
in reply to Kristian

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Kristian

@z428 Friendica never had the install base that Diaspora had. It never had the funding either. Or even the press.

And yet, despite initially being made in 2010, Friendica has enthusiasm *right now* because they have a fundamentally different approach to protocols from Diaspora.

Friendica will talk to anyone. Friendica uses its own protocol, DRFN. But it also uses Diaspora and ActivityPub.

Friendica is happy to talk to everyone. Diaspora is not. That’s the difference.
in reply to Chris Trottier

@z428 You allude to the fact that developers aren’t excited about Diaspora anymore. And that’s because developers don’t want to work on something that insists on everything being “just so”.

Developers are excited about working on Friendica, though. You can use it with Fedilab. It just got added to @tootsdk.

Both Diaspora and Friendica are relative the same age. One of them follows your preferred approach, and the other doesn’t.