We need to talk about Mastodon gGmbH. They are the main developers of Mastodon's server software & official mobile apps, they own mastodon.social and Mastodon's trademarks. Their behaviour is inexplicably going in two totally opposite directions.
A couple of years ago they started promoting mastodon.social from the official apps while hiding other servers, causing their server to grow while other servers shrank. Mastodon.social is currently about 28.7% of the active Fediverse and growing.
For comparison, another major server mas.to is just 1.2% of the active Fediverse. Mastodon.social is about twenty-four times bigger.
𧡠1/4
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
reshared this
FediThing
in reply to FediThing • • •If mastodon.social carries on growing at the expense of others, the Fedi will soon be in danger, here's why: fedi.tips/its-a-really-bad-ideβ¦
At the same time, Mastodon's server devs are creating brilliant features to help decentralise the Fediverse. The v4.5.0 release will auto-federate all replies in threads, greatly helping smaller servers.
The good stuff will be pointless if mastodon.social keeps growing. It's as if Mastodon gGmbH isn't sure what it wants: does it want to build the world's only truly decentralised social network, or does it want to make a centralised social network which is structurally destined to enshittify?
2/4
Mastodon.social is not a good way to join Mastodon. If youβre already on it, you might want to move your account to a different Mastodon server. | Fedi.Tips β An Unofficial Guide to Mastodon and the Fediverse
fedi.tipsdiana π³οΈβ§οΈπ¦π± reshared this.
FediThing
in reply to FediThing • • •This is NOT a difficult situation to solve.
There is a really easy solution: keep recommending one server for people who don't like choice, but regularly rotate it so growth is spread out. The app could have a button saying "Join mas.to" instead of "Join mastodon.social", for example.
The app makers could choose a pool of reliable general servers with track records going back many years (some are listed here: fedi.garden/servers-sorted-by-β¦) and recommend one of these on the front page of the app. They could then regularly change which one is recommended, so that each one in the reliable pool gradually gets a share of new signups.
3/4
Servers sorted by founding year | Fedi.Garden
fedi.gardenreshared this
R.L. Dane π΅ and TheNovemberFella βπ³οΈπ πΊπ¦βΈοΈπ°οΈπ reshared this.
FediThing
in reply to FediThing • • •By regularly rotating the recommended server, it would be just as easy for non-technical people to join the Fediverse but the growth would be spread out much more evenly and keep the Fedi protected from the dangers that come with centralisation.
Mastodon gGmbH's brilliant work on the server software would make more sense if they also rotated the recommended server on their apps.
Why isn't Mastodon gGmbH doing this? It's not technically difficult, they could make this change with just a few clicks and it would make a huge difference in keeping the Fediverse safe from takeover.
Hopefully someone at Mastodon gGmbH reads this π
4/4
reshared this
Fiona Bianchi reshared this.
deutrino
in reply to FediThing • • •they're not doing it because Gargron's primary goal remains what it has always been: to have direct control of as big a social media fiefdom as possible.
the pattern is very clear and very consistent to people who've been here nearly a decade and have been paying attention to the dev process of Mastodon.
Jordan Maris πͺπΊ πΊπ¦ #NAFO
in reply to FediThing • • •I have to disagree. Mastodon gGmbH are focussed on ensuring users have a good experience. Most new users aren't that bothered about where they join.
As the developer of a piece of software I would not feel comfortable directing users to a server with potentially arbitrary moderation.
Improving migration tools is, in my view, much more valuable than adding buttons to join other servers.
PaulaToThePeople π·
in reply to Jordan Maris πͺπΊ πΊπ¦ #NAFO • • •@jmaris New users might not care, but active users and especially moderators care.
And not being comfortable directing users to a server with potentially bad moderation is no excuse for directing them to a server with intentionally bad moderation.
FediThing
in reply to Jordan Maris πͺπΊ πΊπ¦ #NAFO • • •@jmaris
None of this is true. The moderation on e.g. mas.to is as good or better than on mastodon.social. I have used both instances for years.
"Most new users aren't that bothered about where they join."
So why send them to the biggest server? Why centralise the platform?
Jordan Maris πͺπΊ πΊπ¦ #NAFO
in reply to FediThing • • •because the mastodon developers can't guarantee users on instances outside it's control a good experience.
Other commenters have raised, for example, that they defederated from mastodon.social: imagine the impact on the user experience of a new user.
I can't speak to the readiness of specific instances, but I can say that the developers are right to think carefully about what the default experience for users should look like.
PaulaToThePeople π·
in reply to Jordan Maris πͺπΊ πΊπ¦ #NAFO • • •@jmaris "because the mastodon developers can't guarantee users on instances outside it's control"
it's spelled monetize, not guarantee.
lashman
in reply to FediThing • • •Fabianγγγ‘γγ’γ³γπ³οΈβπ
in reply to lashman • • •James Baillie
in reply to Fabianγγγ‘γγ’γ³γπ³οΈβπ • • •Fabianγγγ‘γγ’γ³γπ³οΈβπ
in reply to James Baillie • • •Break them might cause other problems. That non-public messages suddenly target others users.
The best option might actually be to remove every link, every emoji, every reference and straight up import only public toots and those as plain text with a link to the original + obviously keep the original on the old server.
indyradio
in reply to FediThing • • •is full of shit, and additionally is structured so it allows 1/3 of all income to go to the CEO.
Repeat that a few times, then tell me what you think.
rainey π»
in reply to indyradio • • •Mastodon is gGmbH, not GmbH. You're referring to the for-profit. This is the non-profit.
indyradio
in reply to rainey π» • • •no. I read their documents. regardless what the acronym is, it allows 1/3 of all income to the CEO, it is NOT AT ALL
repeat
NOT AT ALL
like a US non-profit.
Are you a shill here to defend them?
rainey π»
in reply to indyradio • • •I'm nobody's shill. You're escalating things way too quickly.
indyradio
in reply to rainey π» • • •I am certain they are laughing.
Irenes (many)
in reply to FediThing • • •Irenes (many)
in reply to Irenes (many) • • •Rich Puchalsky β©β
in reply to FediThing • • •