Everyone needs to know there's a Fediverse -- much like they need to know there's an Internet.
Referring to @pixelfed as a Mastodon app, for example, is kind of like referring to Wikipedia as a Facebook app. Yes, @pixelfed with Mastodon, but it's not a Mastodon apps. Yes, Wikipedia connects to Facebook via hyperlinking and previewing, but it's not a Facebook app.
You wouldn't refer to Facebook as the Internet. This is why you shouldn't refer to Mastodon as the Fediverse.
eshep likes this.
reshared this
Chris Trottier
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •I've had a number of people say to me, "Mastodon is a synonym for the Fediverse."
That's only true if you never leave Mastodon, and believe other services work exactly like Mastodon.
For example, look at this feed. If I showed this to a complete noob and said, "This is Mastodon", they would be completely confused.
And that's because it's actually not Mastodon in any logical or meaningful sense.
Chris Trottier
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •Why is it important for people to know that a Fediverse exists?
Because just as people can do different things on different websites, they need to know that they can do different things on different Fediverse services.
Most people don't visit Wikipedia expecting it to be Facebook. And most people shouldn't visit @pixelfed expecting it to be Mastodon.
Chris Trottier
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •"But why can't we do everything through Mastodon and define function at the client level?" some people ask.
Because servers create boundaries on what clients can do.
Mastodon doesn't support comment control. Other Fediverse server software, like @pixelfed, does.
This isn't to say that Mastodon is a "worse" service, just that there's certain functions that it does and doesn't support -- and a client can't add those functions.
And believe me, that's fine!
Chris Trottier
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •The Fediverse could unlock untold innovation on the Internet, as much as the world wide web and email.
Some might wonder why that didn't happen 10 or 20 years ago. The reason is that it social media's true innovative possibilities were kneecapped by centralization and the entities that became Big Social.
But because the Fediverse exists through *protocols* not *proprietary APIs*, it isn't owned by anyone. This makes it possible for anyone to build off of it.
Chris Trottier
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •Currently, what's preventing us from an explosion of innovative Fediverse services?
Mental paradigms.
We've been so thoroughly trained to believe that social media should operate through a walled garden, that we so many of us don't actually believe it that the Fediverse offers a functional alternative.
"What? @pixelfed can talk to Mastodon -- but it's not Mastodon? Impossible!" they say.
Chris Trottier
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •Yesterday, I expressed exasperation that Mastodon users don't try other Fediverse services. The sheer numbers bear witness too this.
While Mastodon has ~10 million accounts, @pixelfed only has ~150,000 accounts.
That means 9,850,000 of you have never tried @pixelfed -- and besides Mastodon, Pixelfed is one of the most popular Fediverse services.
This unwillingness to try the rest of the Fediverse could end up killing the Fediverse!
reshared this
LPS, 800mi and Tim Chambers reshared this.
Tim Chambers
in reply to Chris Trottier • • •@dansup
Yes: monocultures aren’t healthy in life or software platforms….
eshep
in reply to Chris Trottier • •Seems many of these people just want a place where they can replicate the experience they were accustomed to on twitter. They neither know, nor care to know that other things exist, they want everything in a single location because that's how they understand (been led to believe) it's ""sposed to work"" with social media.
I see no problem with them wanting to use it in that way. The danger in it is with them misinforming people who do want more from the service. For those folks, being told "that's just how it works here", is very much the wrong advice.