Actually, when combining this decision with the recent trademark one of not allowing other instances to be named *.mastodon.* there might be a case for questioning Gargron's motives here.

... but I think this is the right move to enable frictionless signups. However, it's now critically important to implement the one-click _complete_ account migration between servers as well.

Basically mastodon.social needs to encourage users to move on from spawn.

#Mastodon

Perhaps changing the default "new user" instance on the Mastodon app to a different one every 6 hours would help build strength through diversity?

#MastodonAppDefaultInstance

I’d like to see it randomly select a server among a list, with a neat little animation to make it clear what is happening. Then include a button just to the right to re-roll.

cc: @Gargron

Aral: share your concern about centralization and big single points of failure.

But wouldn’t the solution here be a “round-robin” where the app recommended a fast sign on - super easy - but changed every X sign ups to recommend a different server? Each one hand chosen to be of high quality, well federated, high uptime, etc?

That to me would give the best of both worlds. Address THE biggest pain point to new users, plus decentralize the new user glow around the Fediverse.

I'm not sure about this, for the reasons I outlined here:
mastodon.social/@hughster/1102…

Hughster

2023-04-20 21:59:59

Hmm. I don't know. I agree with everything you say here about the need to avoid one server becoming too big, but at the same time the "pick a server, any server" stage at onboarding has proved to be too much of a hurdle for far too many non-techie users. Perhaps this really is the least worst workaround for that—make one server a "welcome" server and then let people move once they've got in and had a chance to get used to it?

@aral @Gargron

Dear @Gargron,

Please keep your decision to make the Mastodon app more user friendly.

That's how we win this.

More user friendlyness, not a walled garden for nerds is the key.

@marquiskurt I think it is way more better educating people that wasting time making frictionless experience... This is not a challenge against proprietary services, having more people using the Fediverse shouldn't be a goal... All this question is because someone wants to capitalize over the amount of users, think about.

Perhaps it would be better having more people contributing to the Fediverse making easier creating new servers and so on... Even this case it is about education...

Could you please cut the crap about calling the fediverse "a platform"?

It seems to be an american thing that you must "compete" with the Facebook, or the Twitters of this world.

There is no common goal, stop that.

You never lived during the BBS period, do you?

If mastodon.social wants to become the new twitter, we will take care of defederating it.

I didn't came to the fediverse to see the same crap of the commercial social networks. Thanks but bo thanks.

Is this being elitist? Oh yes it is and I would like for this corner of the world to remain small and enjoyable.

I don't need another eternal September.

I have an alternative suggestion.

Step 1: Implement *actual* account portability. Posts, likes, and everything.

Step 2: Create an instance and call it something like welcome.mastodon.social.

Step 3: All new accounts through the app go to welcome.mastodon.social. Still the same super easy onboarding which is what the current change does help with.

Step 4: After a few months, once they have had time to understand how things work with different instances, *require* people to move from welcome.mastodon.social and provide a list of many options to do so.

This way people can get into things without the challenge of picking a server right away (I myself balked at the task 3 times before finally making my account). I think that easy onboarding is a reasonable goal. But over time my approach avoids having one massive instance which signing everyone straight up for mastodon.social and not providing actual account portability does.

With all due respect, I am NOT saying that the Fediverse needs to COMPETE with anything. I’m simply stating that we should focus on improving the user experience.

And if being elitist is the only way something is enjoyable for you, I think there are bigger issues there.

Oh well, might be that I don't like the masses and the signal to noise ratio is way to high for my tastes.

Now a question. When you say "we" about improving the user experience, "we" who, exactly?

Because the fediverse is not Mastodon.

I host my own Honk instance, others uses Pleroma. There is Gotosocial and snac2 and all the others.

I'm sorry to say there is no "we", but a losely coupled set of servers that appears to speak the same protocol.

Do you want to make the experience to sign to mastodon.social easier? Feel free. But please, stop conflating the fediverse with this.

As I said, when the mass on mastodon.social will become critical, the rest of the administrators managing othet fediverse instances will just defederate it as it's their right.

Mastodon.social will become the equivalent of truth.social and that's ok.

It's the beauty of a federated infrastructure.

@absc @marquiskurt and by the way is that difficult sign-up to any of these AP social network?

I don't recall it...

The thing that seems to be totally forgotten is that Mastodon thrives on good instance moderation.

In November, POC accounts were getting banned and accused of racism which, I assure you, is what many people know Mastodon for now. No, that's not fair, but you only make one 1st impression.

How on earth is mastodon.social going to keep up with an exponential growth in users and need for smart experienced mods? I'd love to hear from server owners!

#ModerationIsWork #Moderation

I've been sampling public opinion on this privately, and the overwhelming consensus agrees with @aral and @feditips

Among other consequences, this may dump all over those who have aggressively sold people on the idea that the fediverse was a new approach to social networking, not just a marketing hook for the Mastodon brand.

Why not a public onboarding server supported by all the servers who want to pull new users exploring 1st fedi access? Everyone is then on an equal footing.

I disagree. Easing signup is a great idea. Asking users to do hours of research before even signing up is a real bar to usage.

Letting people know that other instances exist is going to be an ongoing thing.

I disagree. Mastodon has a terrible onboarding problem because potential sign-ups are paralyzed into closing the browser and walking away when they see the list of servers. This GUI they offer eliminates that friction.

A more sensible goal is more seamless migration so that you can switch servers quickly and efficiently without losing your history.

> "This is the sort of design a VC-funded startup would implement"

It extremely isn't. There's a "pick your own server" button right there. It's trying to smooth out the process for new users so the very first screen isn't a big explanation of what an instance is.

Hyperbole is not how we win this, etc.

Total agree!
More instances, not larger instances is the key.

@Gargron

The issue here is the _instance_ model.

In distributed systems like GNUnet or IPFS, every node entering the network empowers the whole system.
Node leaving the network does not disturb the consistency of network.

Do share the massive variety of email providers.

1. Embrace. Use the email standards such as SMTP to talk to other email servers.
2. Extend. Encourage all email users to use your service by making it the default and positioning yourself as "the server" via applications and partnerships, eventually adding features that are limited to your mail interface.
3. Extinguish. Say that all other mail servers that aren't yours are spam and block them.

If you don't see how this could happen on the Fediverse today then I don't know what to tell you.

@gabek @laurenshof @Nour @Mr_Teatime I guess these things cannot be prevented by any technology in itself, so will always be political choices (i.e. depending on the people in power, their preferences, principles and ideals, stakeholder leverage, etc)?

(this is a sincere question / 'hypothesis', this isn't my field so I don't know much about these dynamics 🙂)

@matherion @gabek @laurenshof @Nour @Mr_Teatime You can prevent it by designing technology that’s truly decentralised; tech that scales horizontally, not vertically. Tech specifically designed so there are no economies of scale.

See, for example, small-tech.org/research-and-de…

"I have to pick from thousands of instances! Why is joining Mastodon so complicated?"

I don't agree with this decision either, but I can understand why this choice was made.

I disagree. I remember my first attempt to get onto Mastodon/Fediverse. First thing I had to do was choose a server — WTF? HowTF should I know which to choose? I felt shut out and overwhelmed, so I stopped.

The second attempt, later, a year ago, I chose a server that seemed local, but as I saw was home of a special community that I wasn't a part of. I had to change instances, quite annoying. Then after some senseless pondering I chose one with short domain name. >>

@Nour @gabek @laurenshof @Mr_Teatime In as much as moving from a monopoly to an oligopoly can be considered an improvement, I agree.

I'll be putting my hopes for actual change into truly decentralized approaches. #ssb or #SmallWeb

There can never be a waterthight law, or 100% stable political system, or purely technical solution for a socio-economical problen.

but there are of course technical arrangement that make things easier or harder, and encourage/discourage certain behaviour, and anyone making technology and pretending otherwise is not honest. We absolutely need things that are better in this regard: empower people, and prevent domination.

@matherion @gabek @laurenshof @Nour