Skip to main content


Interesting revelation from #gargron in recent interview on server choices for newcomers (https://www.theverge.com/23658648/mastodon-ceo-twitter-interview-elon-musk-twitter)

“However, I think that possibly going forward, we might rework the onboarding user experience into **presenting a default option as well as an advanced option, where all that stuff with choosing a server would basically be hidden away from the people who get intimidated by choice**.”

@fediversenews @hosting #fediverse
in reply to maegul

Our "king" is being seduced by the #NGO crew... #feudalism is a very bad model of "governance" just saying the obvious #OGB
in reply to maegul

I do like this idea. It's kinda silly, but selecting a server is a big source of friction for some.

But how do you pick the default(s)? This sort of decision can have a huge influence on the evolution of the network. There's also a big range of experiences on the Fediverse, so helping folks find a good fit matters.

Maybe a quick survey? Like, which of these hash tags do you want more / less of?
in reply to Nate Gaylinn

@ngaylinn yea, in principle, tackling that friction for newcomers makes a lot of sense.

But realistically, the whole instance thing is fraught from a UX perspective IMO. They can be simultaneously meaningless and important. In some ways, federated instances are a nice-to-have safety structure where most of the time you don’t want to and indeed don’t have any need to care too much about it.
in reply to maegul

@ngaylinn
Federation is the basis of having a very decentralized social network. There may be other approaches (my mind is open to alternatives...) that preserve the benefits of the fediverse such as avoiding the possibility that a billionaire can buy control of the entire system.
in reply to Ron K Jeffries social

@Ronkjeffries @ngaylinn i understand. I’m not trying to diminish the importance of federation. Not at all. Instead I’m characterising it from a user and UX perspective. The “safety” features of the fediverse are very real and important IMO (as all here would agree).

But from a UX perspective, it’s mostly friction and confusion. Broadly, IMO the fediverse is still “laying down pipes” and not yet refining UX.
in reply to Cynthia Morse Linton

@lucywildboots @Ronkjeffries well I’m sure he’s been told the same things I’m saying. I saw someone run a poll on Twitter and why they haven’t joined mastodon. 30-40% voted “it’s confusing”. It’s probably the single biggest change that could make user growth faster.

His suggestion though leans perilously toward centralisation though, which is already within the “centralisation” of the fediverse inside mastodon.
in reply to maegul

@lucywildboots @Ronkjeffries I wonder how many of the 30-40% were told that it was confusing before they first tried it?

Not saying that there's nobody who legitimately finds it confusing, of course that's the case for some. But if you're repeatedly told 'Mastodon is confusing', then you'll be more inclined to give up immediately.
in reply to RolloTreadway

@RolloTreadway @lucywildboots @Ronkjeffries This is difficult to counter. If you try saying “Mastodon isn’t confusing”, then immediately that suggests that someone, somewhere said it was. So maybe it is.
It’s an excellent way for anyone with a pro-Twitter (or anti-Fediverse) agenda to spread FUD.
I don’t know how to counter this, but suspect some other language or form of words is needed.
in reply to Kevin Davidson

@MetalSamurai @RolloTreadway @lucywildboots @Ronkjeffries Fair I suppose.

But getting down to basics, you’re given a choice (which instance). There are many ways to not understand that choice, even beyond the basic idea of why the choice exists in the first place (ie decentralisation).

What are all/any of the consequences of picking one over the other?
in reply to maegul

@MetalSamurai @RolloTreadway @lucywildboots @Ronkjeffries
Why do some say it doesn’t matter and yet they all advertise themselves as unique in some way?
Moderation and blocking seem to be a major difference between instances, but how do I find information about that?

Compounded by a lack of knowledge about the “culture” of the fediverse, a newcomer is forced to make a choice they don’t understand.
in reply to maegul

Each instance is supposed to have a carrector of its own, and to an extent some do, the moderation rules and action are all instance based, so this is important.

The best instances are small with mod teams you get to know, the rest is mostly #mainstreaming lies/misinformation, I only half joke ;)
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to vagabond

@Hamishcampbell @MetalSamurai @RolloTreadway @lucywildboots @Ronkjeffries yes, but my point is how does a newcomer discern any detail about these moderation / admin differences? From what I’ve seen, most instances and admins are relatively opaque about who they are and what they’re about and are instead part of some inner circle on the instance. Which is great. But awful for newcomers.
in reply to DanaBlankenhorn

@DanaBlankenhorn @jaz @kimschulz @Ronkjeffries @ngaylinn Until the massive instances decide to just talk amongst themselves and block the unaffiliated non-financially-beneficial small and specialist instances.

Federation works while access is everyone to everywhere, but new users might not even realise they are being cut off if 'the bigs' go their own way.
in reply to AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈

@AlisonW @DanaBlankenhorn @kimschulz @Ronkjeffries @ngaylinn I've only seen the opposite, smalls blocking bigs for being too big. All the activity and discussion I've seen from bigs is "more is better" and it's hard to imagine a financial need to defederate small communities with lower traffic.
in reply to jaz :twt: :wales_flag:

@jaz @DanaBlankenhorn @kimschulz @Ronkjeffries @ngaylinn At issue is funding. Small instances are frequently owner-funded (as is mine) because they are geeks and interested in the concepts.
But like Twitter and its ongoing problems the big 1M+ instances need a revenue source to survive.
Becoming a walled garden is one of their options.
in reply to AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈

@AlisonW @jaz @DanaBlankenhorn @kimschulz @Ronkjeffries @ngaylinn this is part of the reason why I think there’s a need to “educate” new “fedizens” about the value of decentralisation, and why the signup process is important in how well this is achieved.

Supporting the structure of the fediverse is a duty we all have. Donations, smaller instances, diversity: Up to us.
in reply to AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈

every user should have their own instance!

i have a deck about this, i can't handle the coding involved.

https://cloud.payfrit.com/index.php/s/65wQKWWe5CJPqcH
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻

@benpate @loktai @pinkyfloyd @AlisonW @DanaBlankenhorn @Ronkjeffries @kimschulz @ngaylinn @jaz the thing that needs to be kept in mind is that to most people, even doing the sign up flow is more Time (a currency in its own right) then they are willing to spend, let alone making a personal instance and managing it.
in reply to deefdragon

@deef @loktai @pinkyfloyd @AlisonW @DanaBlankenhorn @Ronkjeffries @kimschulz @ngaylinn @jaz Yes, and… OSS is notoriously geared towards techies. It needs to be as easy to start as signing up for FB, as safe to use as riding a city bus, and as easy to migrate as switching phone carriers.
in reply to Dave

once the fediverse solves for every user having their own instance, everything magically falls into place.

especially the hassle of "doing something on MY instance vs. doing something on YOUR instance"
in reply to Pinky Floyd

@pinkyfloyd @AlisonW @DanaBlankenhorn @loktai @Ronkjeffries @apples_and_pears @kimschulz @ngaylinn @jaz @deef Yes. This is the end state. Multi-tenant services that give each person their own “instance”. Technically, it’s not that hard. It’s just a psychological shift for the OSS devs trying to recreate TWTTR.
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻

in reply to Qazm

This is a point in favour of well managed shared instances. A lone, unsophisticated person is a prime target for spammers and scammers. Once they've got your address/handle you can't be expected to fend off crypto scammers and so on from a million different angles. You'd need to switch to approve new connections by default. Still leaves you on your own to make a judgement call about each, even if elsewhere it's widely known that your new "friend" is a source of trouble. My first idea is social reputation scores, but that's just way too easy for someone with a sock puppet brigade to game. Web of trust (friend of a friend of a...) is how many successful phishing campaigns work by harvesting address books and forging sender details. It kind of works best if you're big enough to see the patterns.
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻

I'm still believe trust networks could provide solutions for our biggest problem. Trust.
I did try some work on this around 2008.
IMHO, the only way trust networks work (FoaF) is if a breach of trust by someone you have vouched for rebounds on you.
There has to be a downside.
Villages work like this.
#trust #fediverse
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻

I'd love trust networks to be a reliable thing. A design that worked well and could heal from attack would be good. I feel sure that people somewhere must definitely have put a lot of thought into this. Does anyone know where - papers, articles etc?

They tend to fall either by weight of numbers (a sock puppet army join wearing a friendly face mask) or by subverting someone already within your web of trust. (Of course, this happens in meat space all the time as well, people end up joining cults or getting ripped off by "friends")

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.