Content warning: fedi meta Click to open/close

Content warning: fedi meta, blatant promotion of my own blog Click to open/close

Content warning: fedi meta Click to open/close

It's got to be stopped, and it will only get worse the more it grows.

I've been keeping an eye on the meter at https://instances.social/mastodon.social and it currently shows mastodon.social as 13.8% of all Fedi users.

I know it will be painful for people to defederate from 1 in 7 users, but it will be a lot less painful than 1 in 4, or 1 in 2, or wherever it is heading for on the current course.

@tchambers
> Defederation should be a nuclear option only for virtually unmoderated servers in my book

Funny, I've been arguing this too, but I'm starting to come around to @FediThing's position. The combination of John Mastodon's decision to funnel most newbies into his mega-instance, with the persistent crypto-spam coming from it, is the final straw for me. Something's got to give.

(1/3)

@rysiek

@tchambers
I suggest drafting an open letter and getting it signed by other server admins. Tell John Mastodon his instances will be defederated if he doesn't address the problems they're creating. My suggestions for the conditions;

a) reverse the decision to funnel all new users of the official apps into his instances

b) manually approve all new accounts on them to weed out spammers

(2/3)

@FediThing @rysiek

@tchambers
c) close registrations for at last a week whenever spam or other serious abuse is (accurately) reported, so mods can redirect their attention from pre-approving new accounts to weeding out Bad Actors among existing ones.

d) maintain a mod to user ratio of no lower than X per thousand.

Thoughts?

(3/3)

@FediThing @rysiek

> I don't find ultimatums useful

It's not an ultimatum, just a statement of fact. Some admins are already Limiting m.s. Defederation, like winter, is coming if he doesn't get House Mastodon in order.

> Plus he already knows what needs to be done

Maybe. I'm no mind reader, so I don't know. At least if it's stated openly, a) he definitely does know, and b) there's evidence of due process when people complain about defederation.

Who knows, he might even listen?

@tchambers @FediThing

@strypey @FediThing

Anyone is free to defederate anyone, but everyone can ask "to what end?"

Defederation is a fundamentally self-defeating tactic to fighting centralization. And when does it stop? The top 3 largest servers etc? Top 10?

Much better: focus on growing the middle and lower end serers than blocking the big.

@tchambers @strypey
There's a danger is that the more m.s grows the more the network effect will kick in.

I'm often having to deal with people on @feditips who think m.s is better because it's where everyone is going anyway.

There could be a feedback loop where growth causes growth.

Also, as m.s gets bigger there's more chance of it being sold to someone worse. Eugen might change, or get bored, or get an offer he cannot refuse (not mafia, but just a lot of money 😁 ).

@tchambers @strypey @feditips

Growing middle and low ends is what used to happen on the old onboarding, where it asked people to choose a server.

It no longer does that, and people are no longer being driven to middle and low ends.

That alone should be cause for concern.

@FediThing @strypey @feditips

The proper use of "network effects" should be to rally the thousands of mid-range and smaller servers to grow, and to encourage users to migrate to them from M.S. not to balkanize or fragment the Fedi.

Onboarding doesn't only happen at the JoinMastodon level unless folks don't push it at the local servers.

BTW: the new onboarding now only apply to the mobile app, right, the web UI is unchanged? And don't most use other apps now (Ivory, icebubes etc)?

@ramsey Exactly and there were a lot of people here insisting that Mastodon needed to make the onboarding process easier for newbies who don't understand the fediverse (most new users but also quite a lot of less new ones apparently, which is fine, people shouldn't have to be working in tech or sociology to figure out how a complex social media service works). Choice is great until it's overwhelming and self defeating! Starting simple is good.

@tchambers @FediThing @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@Lucinda @ramsey @tchambers @strypey @feditips

That's an argument for having one server suggested, not an argument for having the biggest server suggested.

It is just as simple to sign up on (for example) mas.to as it is on mastodon.social.

There is zero need to have the biggest server by far being the default.

@FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

Then a FAR, FAR better use of energy on decentralization would be to do a group fundraising, to offer to enable a round-robin onaboarding at the Mastodon.social level. If they chose to do that, the group raising that money would offer a donation to fund it.

Positive change, not fragmentation.

@tchambers

Oh that's an interesting idea.

@FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@hrefna the round-robin idea has been kicked around ever since the "default instance" thing happened. Perhaps even much earlier.

The problem is not getting good ideas on how the onboarding can be improved, the problem is that Eugen refuses to consider them.

@tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

In a real way I don't think it requires mastodon.social to be on board at all.

Run it as a nonprofit, set up a website, streamline the onboarding process with a variety of servers, send people to the new onboarding page, etc. It's a _ton_ of work, but of all the groups you need buy-in from Eugen isn't one of them.

It won't work on "joinmastodon" but "mastodon" (and the fediverse) are bigger than just that one entry point.

@tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

@hrefna that's actually a very good point.

If all the rest of fedi — including admins of Mastodon servers that are fed up with Gagron — banded together and built a single, reliable, safe, and usable entry point to the Fediverse, that would be a pretty powerful thing to do.

@tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

@hrefna

"If ... built a single, reliable, safe, and usable entry point to the Fediverse ..."

Done:

* attractive home page: https://fediverse.party

** apps: https://fediverse.party/en/miscellaneous

** servers: https://fediverse.party/en/portal/servers

@tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

- Fediverse.Party - explore federated networks

Let's make social media free, federated and fun! Fediverse.Party is your guide into the world of decentralized, autonomous networks running on free open software on a myriad of servers across the world. No ads and no algorithms.

^{fediverse.party}

@boud I am aware of all of this existing, and while it's great it does exist, it's nowhere near what we're talking about here.

@hrefna @tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

I don't follow.

Is one of these criteria missing?
* reliable
* safe
* usable

In terms of "all the rest of fedi ... banded together", isn't a git repository about the best way to band together in an open, transparent, participatory way that can easily be forked in case the maintainers become authoritarian?

* https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fediparty

@lightone @hrefna @tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

fediparty

:milky_way: A quick look into Fediverse networks -

^Codeberg.org

@boud it's really not usable enough to be a default landing page for all new fedi users.

As far as safety is concerned, we would need some BIPOC people to help design this to make sure PoC people joining fedi land on instances that are safe for them. That's not a given even with large, well-known instances.

Yes, git repo is great.

@lightone @hrefna @tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

@boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

If we want to set up an alternatives to JoinMastodon etc, we have to stop calling this place "mastodon".

Eugen owns the trademark on that word in relation to social networks. This gives him the legal right to say which app is official, which servers can use the name "Mastodon" etc.

We would have to get people to be aware of the Fediverse as a word and a concept (which is why I have been doing posts like this https://mstdn.social/@feditips/110361969188890029).

As for safety, as far as I know fediverse.party does not curate servers based on safety or reliability. If you're going to have a portal, it has to have human beings screening which servers are listed.

I've done this on https://fedi.garden by just asking servers to commit to the same terms as the Mastodon Covenant, which seems a reasonable starting point. If they're already trying to be on JoinMastodon, it's easy for them to comply with identical standards.

Fedi.Garden

Highlighting nice servers on Mastodon and the Fediverse

^fedi.garden

@FediThing @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

This explainer is great, but the practical issue is that the world and the media are aware of Mastodon, but not the Fediverse.

It is a pretty high hill to climb, from a marketing point of view, to both introduce a new platform name and get new users to sign up, particularly if the objective is to "reduce friction" in the sign up process.

1/

@FediThing @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

Also, the software is called Mastodon. It seems like there is no avoiding using the name when getting people to sign up for the service.

It would be good to understand more about this trademark restriction and why you think it would be a problem. Would you anticipate Eugen opposing some sort of open instance group providing an alternative portal, and demand that it not use the name Mastodon?

2/

@mastodonmigration @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey

We don't know what he will do, and that's the problem.

Anything built around the word "mastodon" is ultimately at his mercy legally:

https://joinmastodon.org/trademark

For example... "You may not use the Mastodon word mark, or any similar mark, in your domain name, unless you have written permission from Mastodon gGmbH."

Also, we don't know who he will sell the trademark to. He could sell it to anyone. Developers sometimes get bored and leave, especially if someone dangles money under their nose.

Anything he accepts, he can take back at will unless you make him sign some kind of contract. He is maintaining full rights to the word. The word isn't part of the FOSS licence that the software has.

Trademark Policy of Mastodon

^{joinmastodon.org}

@FediThing All these bad faith accusations towards Eugen are pretty toxic. Non-profits register trademarks, he's not just "some developer," he's done a lot of work on making the fediverse relevant and what it is today (as have many other people) and was serious and dedicated enough to the concept to build Mastodon the software and the org. He's not Dorsey starting BS with a rival software that's not W3C standard.

@mastodonmigration @rysiek @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @ramsey @strypey

@Lucinda @mastodonmigration @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @strypey

These aren't bad faith accusations, these are sincerely felt worries.

Yes Eugen is a fantastic developer, yes he's maybe done more work than anyone else on the Fedi. But he didn't build this place alone.

There are thousands of servers out there run by admins and other volunteers who don't get interviewed on CNN, but their work is really important.

By telling everyone to sign up on his own server mastodon.social, he is sidelining the diverse grassroots communities that this place is supposed to be all about.

@FediThing It's really not Eugen's fault the media wants heroes and can't grasp what the fediverse is. Also, other people have been interviewed (including at least one of the authors of activitypub). Eugen isn't forcing people to sign up to m.s, he's making it easier by giving an obvious choice because people here DEMANDED he do it. He was literally responding to demands from people on Mastodon, including some admins.

@mastodonmigration @rysiek @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @strypey

@Lucinda @mastodonmigration @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @strypey

"Eugen isn't forcing people to sign up to m.s, he's making it easier by giving an obvious choice because people here DEMANDED he do it."

Why didn't he choose a smaller instance that he didn't own?

Why did it have to make the biggest server by far even bigger, and on top of that the one that he personally owns?

If you want a specific example, why couldn't it say "Sign up on mas.to"?

Why did it have to be mastodon.social?

@FediThing Why would he choose some rando's instance? This is just weird that people are obsessed with this. It's so impractical! He's using m.s as an entry point because he can use it to improve the software/eat the dogfood, it's his reputation on the line and people demanded that he do something to make it easier for newbies.

@mastodonmigration @rysiek @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @strypey

@Lucinda @mastodonmigration @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @strypey

"Why would he choose some rando's instance? This is just weird that people are obsessed with this."

Some rando?

On a decentralised network, you're saying that all instances except the biggest one are some rando?

Yes it is odd that people volunteering their time to a decentralised network are "obsessed" with it remaining decentralised.

Maybe environmentalists should dial down on their obsession with the environment?

@objectinspace @Lucinda @mastodonmigration @boud @lightone @hrefna @tchambers @strypey

They were already promoting third party servers, and listing the criteria too:

https://joinmastodon.org/covenant

They already had a pool to choose from, and they could have chosen the most reliable ones from this pool with the longest track records.

Switching to just m.s was a step backwards.

Mastodon Server Covenant for joinmastodon.org

^{joinmastodon.org}