@testing@fediversenews at the very least it's nice to see criticism from someone that actually does have a fairly deep understanding instead of bad tech journalists that looked at it for a day or two in late November and walked away with their calcified hot takes.
@testing@fediversenews Further, not everyone will like any experience. I know many adults who love Disneyland. You couldn't pay me to go there. Every platform is a little different. Mastodon is very different. You could practice total immersion for a year and not like it. Some do. Some do not.
The only number that matters on Mastodon is how may donate to run the instance they're on.
@testing@fediversenews Correction. They did pay me to go to Disneyland. I played there a few years ago. But we could have had a room free in the hotel and I wanted nothing to do with that. A friend of mine paid for he and his wife to stay there.
> Mastodon is at risk of falling into the trap that a lot of free/open source software does, where the idea of the software being “free as in speech” is expected to outweigh or explain away deficiencies in its usefulness...
@testing@fediversenews Interesting read, though I don't fully agree with it. I came over in the #TwitterMigration and right now #Mastodon fits my needs better than Twitter did for casual browsing. The only catch was onboarding: it works great once you've got enough follows and hashtags, but there's no guidance at all for setting that up on a fresh account. That's really the only thing that keeps me from recommending it to my low-tech friends.
@jeremyrdyer
Yes, interesting blog post...my technical understanding is slipping at a low level, but if I understand correctly so far, the decentralized server capacities in their current existing funding are not designed for a large mass of participants, perhaps not even for volunteer moderation teams (possibly with different legal knowledge);
I've been openly welcomed here as a Twitter refugee and possibly feel comfortable here because I've viewed it as a fresh start. @testing@fediversenews
@Regez@testing@fediversenews The article claimed that the federated model Mastodon uses is less efficient than a single corporate network. This may or may not be true.
Then it claimed that the increase in Mastodon users will require bigger servers. This is true regardless of efficiency.
It concludes that these servers can't pay for themselves without ads or subscriptions, and that's where it jumps the shark for me. The FOSS community has found ways to pay the bills before.
"Less efficient" is besides the point, anyway. It would be more efficient to have just a handful of people who make policy for the entire world.
The majority of people have strongly decided against that kind of "more efficient" model for exactly the same reasons why people are jumping ship from centralized social media platforms.
Exactly right! A conversation or a democracy isn't the most efficient way to pass a message along, but that's not it's goal.
And I'd debate the server efficiency of the Fediverse vs private social media anyway. We might be making more server calls, but we also don't have to use 13 flavors of useless bloatware on the back end just because they make middle management feel useful. 😉
Add comment