You could just stay on the biggest mastadon instance and not care about anything. Wouldn’t be too different than just using bluesky.
Preferring handcuffs because it’s more seemless sounds like a terrible mindset
Comment on X's idiocy is doing wonders for Bluesky.
pixelscript@lemm.ee 4 weeks agoI’m pretty sure they’re referring to the concept of defederation and how that can splinter the platform.
Bluesky is ““federated”” in largely the same ways as Mastodon, but there’s basically one and only one instance anyone cares about. The federation capability is just lip service to the minority of dorks like us who care.
To the vast majority of Twitter refugees, federation as a concept is not a feature, it’s an irritation.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Preferring handcuffs because it’s more seemless
They’re not handcuffs. You can always log off.
But the big appeal of BlueSky is the initialization of the interface. It defaults you to “Following” rather than “Discover” and isn’t jamming a ton of ads in your feed. There’s basically no algorithm. Its a very basic service, rather than an engineered mess. More akin to Facebook or Twitter from back in the '00s, before monetization ruined them.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 weeks ago
the big appeal of BlueSky is the initialization of the interface. It defaults you to “Following” rather than “Discover” and isn’t jamming a ton of ads in your feed. There’s basically no algorithm. Its a very basic service, rather than an engineered mess. More akin to Facebook or Twitter from back in the '00s, before monetization ruined them.
The big appeal of bluesky is that it is in the early stages of monetization that hinges on effectively enclosing a commons so that everybody chooses the product and everything else effectively dies off. The next stage will come, which is when the enshittification happens.
Do you honestly believe there won’t be enshittification because the priorities of the current development in the near future is focused on the benefits of users?
…or to put it another way, do you set a mouse trap with food a mouse finds miserable to eat? Do you think that first bite of cheese accurately depicts the reality about to unfold?
naught101@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Everything you just said is also true of mastodon.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Mastodon doesn’t have a single aggregated community. It’s fractured, such that joining one instance doesn’t guarantee access to another user’s content easily.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Yeah I didn’t know Mastadon monetizes
FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Partly. Except the time different Mastodon instances were not federated much or at all. If you wanted to go follow someone on Mastodon you had to know the exact server they were on. In an environment like Reddit and Lemmy where you’re there for the communities instead of the people that isn’t an issue. But if you want to go follow some specific podcaster you need to know the instance because there’s no guarantee that whatever instance you happen upon is going to be joined up with the one there on.
Everyone was busy running their own servers and not trying to tie everything together. It was a thing that could be done but a thing not enough were doing.
pixelscript@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
That sounds worse than I thought it was. I just assumed Mastodon was like Lemmy, where every instance federates with every other instance basically by default and there’s only some high-profile defed exceptions.
A Fediverse where federations are opt-in instead of opt-out sounds like actual hell. Yeah, more control to instances, hooray, but far less seamless usability for people. The only people you will attract with that model are the ones who think having upwards of seven alts for being in seven different communities isn’t remotely strange or cumbersome. That, and/or self-hosting your own individual instances. Neither of these describe the behavior of the vast majority of Internet users who want to sign up on a platform that just works with one account that can see and interact with everything.
ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I just assumed Mastodon was like Lemmy, where every instance federates with every other instance basically by default and there’s only some high-profile defed exceptions.
That’s…Not how Lemmy works either. In fact, and someone may correct me if I’m mistaken here, your hell is how it works as I understand it. Instances don’t have any built-in crawlers to seek out others running on ActivityPub with the same software, e.g. Lemmy or Mastodon or the like. That’s genuinely been one of the biggest stumbling blocks with the whole protocol, as discovery is largely a manual affair.
One of the basic reasons for this that I’ve read is that it’s related to handling scaling, as each instance trying to handle all of the data of all the people on each other instance right away would bog down the servers and probably crash them. It also arguably works out, to a degree, that there’s a good chance not everyone on each instance is of interest to each other anyway, so you may not want or need each server to know about every other server’s people/channels/communities/etc.
But I’m going to stop before I get too much further into the weeds of all this. The irony is that the simplest solution to discovery issues with all of this presently is to invite those you want to have a similar experience to you, or want to connect to with the fewest jumps, to the same instance as you to mitigate any of those issues. Does that tend to undermine many of the benefits of it all? In a lot of ways, yeah, but that’s where many ActivityPub platforms are at currently, at least the more popular ones as I understand them.
pixelscript@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
My true hell would be instances only federating explicitly through whitelist. If what the other reply I received about Mastodon is correct, and if Lemmy behaves similary, then they operate on an implicit auto-federation with every other instance. Actual transaction of data needs to be triggered by some user on that instance reaching out to the other instance, but there’s no need for the instances involved to whitelist one another first. They just do it. To stop the transfer, they have to explicitly defed, which effectively makes it an opt-out system.
The root comment I initially replied to made it sound, to me, like Mastodon instances choose not to federate with one another. Obviously they aren’t preemptively banning one another, so, I interpreted that to mean Mastodon instances must whitelist one another to connect. But apparently what they actually meant was, “users of Mastodon instances rarely explore outward”? The instances would auto-federate, but in practice, the “crawlers” (the users) aren’t leaving their bubbles often enough to create a critical mass of interconnectedness across the Fediverse?
The fact we have to have this discussion at all is more proof to my original point regardless. Federation is pure faffery to people who just want a platform that has everything in one place.
angrystego@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It sounds like an asocial network - something for me finally, perhaps :)
naught101@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Mastodon federation is not opt-in. As soon as anyone on one server is following one person on the other server, the servers are fully federated. From there, it’s opt-out, via blocking.
naught101@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That’s nonsense. I’m on one of the main servers, and like 90% of my feed is from other servers, and it includes lots of small servers. And that’s been true for years.
It’s try the search function was bad prior to earlier this year, but it’s improved a bit. And if you are looking for someone specific, then presumably their account would be listed somewhere on their website?
Lennny@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I get it, hearing about federation is the worst part of this site . Y’all sound like coinbros “here’s the most inefficient storage method, lets call it something easy to remember and sell it as a feature!”