Interesting revelation from #gargron in recent interview on server choices for newcomers (theverge.com/23658648/mastodon…)
“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
Can Mastodon seize the moment from Twitter?
CEO Eugen Rochko on running — and growing — a decentralized social network gaining an influx of users in the wake of Elon Musk’s Twitter meltdown.Nilay Patel (The Verge)
vagabond
in reply to maegul • • •Nate Gaylinn
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?
maegul
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.
Ron K Jeffries social
in reply to maegul • • •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.
maegul
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.
jaz
in reply to Ron K Jeffries social • • •@Ronkjeffries @ngaylinn
The second largest Mastodon server was bought recently
theblock.co/post/196940/mask-n…
Mask Network acquires Mastodon server Pawoo.net
Yogita Khatri (The Block)🅺🅸🅼 🆂🅲🅷🆄🅻🆉:~$ ▓
in reply to jaz • • •jaz
in reply to 🅺🅸🅼 🆂🅲🅷🆄🅻🆉:~$ ▓ • • •DanaBlankenhorn
in reply to jaz • • •AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️
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.
jaz
in reply to AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️ • • •AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️
in reply to jaz • • •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.
maegul
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.
Pinky Floyd
in reply to AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️ • • •every user should have their own instance!
i have a deck about this, i can't handle the coding involved.
cloud.payfrit.com/index.php/s/…
new fediverse app.odp
Payfrit CloudMichael Wray
in reply to Pinky Floyd • • •Price > 0 will divert many users back to Facebook etc., but I vaguely enjoy this concept.
Ben Pate 🤘🏻
in reply to Michael Wray • • •deefdragon
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻 • • •Ben Pate 🤘🏻
in reply to deefdragon • • •AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻 • • •Dave
in reply to AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️ • • •Pinky Floyd
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"
Ben Pate 🤘🏻
in reply to Pinky Floyd • • •Kevin Davidson
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻 • • •Ben Pate 🤘🏻
in reply to Kevin Davidson • • •Qazm
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻 • • •@benpate @MetalSamurai @pinkyfloyd @AlisonW @DanaBlankenhorn @loktai @Ronkjeffries @apples_and_pears @kimschulz @
... show more@benpate @MetalSamurai @pinkyfloyd @AlisonW @DanaBlankenhorn @loktai @Ronkjeffries @apples_and_pears @kimschulz @ngaylinn @jaz @deef
I wouldn't say it's a technology problem. We can emulate fully distributed systems quite well with current technology, as some competing networks are already doing. (Lightweight TURN/relay servers, or meshes like Tor with its hidden services, function very well as roaming transport.)
The reason they fail and the main issue that makes the desire for (transparent as-if-)individual personal instances incredibly short-sighted is that moderation can't be automated while allowing low-friction access to individual users. It can't be democraticised using an automated system either, since that can always be gamed if it's accessible, because digital identifies are cheap (unless you tie them to real-world legal identities, which has worse problems).
If you ignore that, you eventually end up with either more spam than through completely unfiltered email once the network is large enough to be an attractive target, or a service that has zero user discoverability beyond mutual manual adds (e.g. friend codes on Switch; there are no friend requests there) and semi-manual introductions by a mutual common contact. The latter would technically work for some applications, but it would at most be a slightly smarter blogging platform with limited commenting rather than anything resembling a social network.
Kevin Davidson (Friendica)
in reply to Qazm • • •Ben Pate 🤘🏻
in reply to Kevin Davidson (Friendica) • • •MikeK
in reply to Ben Pate 🤘🏻 • • •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
Ben Pate 🤘🏻
in reply to MikeK • • •Yes and yes. Trust networks need to be self-healing and resistant to attacks. Are you still interested in this? ActivityPub is a fantastic opportunity to rekindle this work..
@mkarliner @metalsamurai@venera.social @jaz @Ronkjeffries @AlisonW @DanaBlankenhorn @MetalSamurai@mas.to @kimschulz @Qazm @fediversenews @ngaylinn @apples_and_pears @pinkyfloyd @deef @loktai @maegul
Kevin Davidson (Friendica)
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")
maegul
Unknown parent • • •@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.
RolloTreadway
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.
Kevin Davidson
in reply to RolloTreadway • • •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.
vagabond
Unknown parent • • •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 ;)
maegul
Unknown parent • • •@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.
maegul
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?
maegul
in reply to vagabond • • •