Salta al contenuto principale


We need to talk about Mastodon gGmbH. They are the main developers of Mastodon's server software & official mobile apps, they own mastodon.social and Mastodon's trademarks. Their behaviour is inexplicably going in two totally opposite directions.

A couple of years ago they started promoting mastodon.social on the official apps while downplaying other servers, causing their server to grow while other servers shrank. Mastodon.social is currently about 28.7% of the active Fediverse and growing.

For comparison, another major server mas.to is just 1.2% of the active Fediverse. Mastodon.social is about twenty-four times bigger.

🧵 1/4

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

If mastodon.social carries on growing at the expense of others, the Fedi will soon be in danger, here's why: fedi.tips/its-a-really-bad-ide…

At the same time, Mastodon's server devs are creating brilliant features to help decentralise the Fediverse. The v4.5.0 release will auto-federate all replies in threads, greatly helping smaller servers.

The good stuff will be pointless if mastodon.social keeps growing. It's as if Mastodon gGmbH isn't sure what it wants: does it want to build the world's only truly decentralised social network, or does it want to make a centralised social network which is structurally destined to enshittify?

2/4

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

This is NOT a difficult situation to solve.

There is a really easy solution: keep recommending one server for people who don't like choice, but regularly rotate it so growth is spread out. The app could have a button saying "Join mas.to" instead of "Join mastodon.social", for example.

The app makers could choose a pool of reliable general servers with track records going back many years (some are listed here: fedi.garden/servers-sorted-by-…) and recommend one of these on the front page of the app. They could then regularly change which one is recommended, so that each one in the reliable pool gradually gets a share of new signups.

3/4

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

By regularly rotating the recommended server, it would be just as easy for non-technical people to join the Fediverse but the growth would be spread out much more evenly and keep the Fedi protected from the dangers that come with centralisation.

Mastodon gGmbH's brilliant work on the server software would make more sense if they also rotated the recommended server on their apps.

Why isn't Mastodon gGmbH doing this? It's not technically difficult, they could make this change with just a few clicks and it would make a huge difference in keeping the Fediverse safe from takeover.

Hopefully someone at Mastodon gGmbH reads this 🙏

4/4

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

they also NEED to finally start working on letting people move over EVERYTHING when they change servers, otherwise it's all going to shit

Oblomov reshared this.

in reply to lashman

@lashman @ladyteruki I did move, from .social to .nl and while it is a pity i couldn't move my toots and replies, a fresh start was okay with me. Granted, I have a small account followers-wise, but most of them were back within a couple of days.

reshared this

in reply to Laurens 🧢 🐐 🔻

@ElBeeToots @ladyteruki yeah, followers and follows already can be moved no problem, i was specifically talking about the toots
in reply to lashman

@lashman @ElBeeToots @ladyteruki

If the old server doesn't shut down and you don't delete your old account, the old toots don't disappear, they remain intact and (if you follow the advice in the guide at fedi.tips/transferring-your-ma…) they forward people to your new account.

I know moving posts would be best, but that's a huge undertaking technically compared to recommending a different server, so I'm trying to give priority on the easiest most effective stuff to do first 🙂

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

@lashman @ElBeeToots : that's nice of you to suggest that it isn't precisely the situation I dislike and was hoping to solve 😀
in reply to FediThing

@lashman @ElBeeToots : ouch, my tone might have been too dry, I apologize too. I'm having an argument on Youtube in another tab and probably wasn't very careful about my tone with you. Thank you for trying to help 😀
in reply to lashman

@lashman @ElBeeToots : I honestly understand that the replies to/from other accounts are a lot to ask, but my own toots & threads is really something that matters to me. Some of my threads have been updated for years.
in reply to lashman

@lashman
@jonny has a proposal for this:

neuromatch.social/@jonny/11537…


RE: neuromatch.social/@jonny/11534…

Rumors that the fediverse can't do mobile identity have been greatly exaggerated: #FEP_1580 is now in draft status - codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src…

This is a proposal for how to migrate all your stuff along with you when you move instances.

The gist:

  • Send a request to move along with a set of stuff you'd like to bring with you. Moderators (optionally) can, approve, send back a change request, or deny. If the changes look ok, start the move, if not, hey you avoided incompatible moderation. Should be possible to layer in any kind of bulk actions you might want: "everything except my DMs," "strip attachments," "only my favorite posts," "nothing," etc.
  • keep a public collection of move events signed by both the source and target for durable, portable proof that you are the same person as the old account
  • the new instance crawls your old account and grabs whatever you specified, and then posts a mapping from old URIs to new URIs.
  • other instances can then immediately remap the URIs so e.g. future interactions get sent to the right place, and then gradually update their local versions over time, spacing out traffic.

Just using existing ActivityPub mechanisms. There are 6 new terms.

Bonus: lays the next steps to migrate to content addressed URIs, decouple accounts from instances, and merge and split accounts.

It being a draft means that there is a 60 day (or longer) public comment period, and feedback/edits/etc. Are very much welcome.
Issue: codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/iss…
Discussion: socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/…

#FediDev #MoveAllPosts

@jonny@neuromatch.social:

Alright it's late and i need to go to bed, but here's a draft FEP to do full account migration with posts and whatever other kinda objects you want to bring with you. It's a trivial expansion of existing ActivityPub/streams systems and supports gradual migration as it's implemented and after an account migration. It should be possible to migrate pretty much everything this way, both private and public objects.
criticism, feedback, revisions, etc. welcome - i don't think this is a "final version" and there are certainly things i overlooked.

codeberg.org/sneakers-the-rat/…

codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pul…

#MoveAllPosts #FediDev #FEP #FEP_1580 #FullMigration #AccountMigration



in reply to George B

@gbargoud @lashman Oh, the same @jonny who did #FetchAllReplies? github.com/mastodon/mastodon/p… github.com/mastodon/documentat…

Btw, sneakers-the-rat is not associated with Mastodon gGmbH. I'm not sure whether this explicates @FediThing's inexplicably.

in reply to wizzwizz4

@wizzwizz4
@gbargoud @lashman
Currently negotiating over an acceptable impl for base masto, won't have time to write it for a few weeks, but it'll happen. I think inability to move is one of the biggest weaknesses of the fedi (even if some software supports it, this is one thing that does require a standard)
in reply to jonny (good kind)

@jonny @wizzwizz4 @gbargoud @lashman

Oh wow, an honour indeed! Thank you and so well done for the work on the "fetch all replies", that's a real breakthrough! 👏

in reply to FediThing

I guess a problem could be the different server rules.

But aside from that I absolutely see your point.

in reply to FediThing

To add to your proposal:

It could also be a random server from a list of approved servers.

Seems a bit easier than overwhelming a different server each month ^^

Also did you ask them? Write them a mail!

in reply to FediThing

Perhaps the chance for being read is bigger if you tag them. These people have accounts on Mastodon. 🤫
Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

@andypiper

Hello Mastodon gGmbH!

The person i'm replying to has a pretty reasonably question for you and i think a pretty good proposal.

( I'm sure you heard this question a few times already, but it would be really cool if you'd answer )

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to Ein Köhler

@coalburner3000 hey there! Thanks for tagging me in to this - I see the posts from @FediThing and I love (and share) their passion for the #fediverse community 👍🏻

There’s a *lot* that can be said on this - more than fits in a single post! I want you to know that the team is aware of all of these asks and suggestions, and a more complete response *will* come along in the near future - stay tuned to our blog 👀

in reply to FediThing

They will laugh at you, and you will gradually be harassed by more Nazis until you hopefully shut up and leave.
That was my experience anyway.

There is no rule expect for the political and economic dominance of the GMBH.
Period.
The rest are routinely trashed, there really is no rule but that.

in reply to FediThing

they're not doing it because Gargron's primary goal remains what it has always been: to have direct control of as big a social media fiefdom as possible.

the pattern is very clear and very consistent to people who've been here nearly a decade and have been paying attention to the dev process of Mastodon.

in reply to FediThing

I have to disagree. Mastodon gGmbH are focussed on ensuring users have a good experience. Most new users aren't that bothered about where they join.

As the developer of a piece of software I would not feel comfortable directing users to a server with potentially arbitrary moderation.

Improving migration tools is, in my view, much more valuable than adding buttons to join other servers.

in reply to Why Not Zoidberg? 🦑

@WhyNotZoidberg Please share examples of their arbitrary moderation.

But respectfully, you are making my own point for me: imagine if the app signed new users up by default to a server that blocks mastodon.social.

Imagine the confusion for that user who has never used mastodon before. It is just an unacceptable first experience.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris @WhyNotZoidberg

Imagine the confusion when Mastodon turns out to be exactly like Twitter because it's centralised.

What exactly is the point of all the massive volunteer efforts to promote the Fediverse if Mastodon gGmbH is going to centralise it? Why should people be donating for that?

in reply to FediThing

@WhyNotZoidberg none of the three people in this conversation are on mastodon.social. There is decentralisation and it is built in as a feature. The situation is in no way comparable to twitter.

When it comes to social networks, you have to balance ideological purity with usability. The fact that you have completely dismissed genuine concerns about usability show you that you are not in a position to do that.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@WhyNotZoidberg at the end of the day, I think we need to provide a good default experience. An "explore mastodon servers" button in the app which gives you choices based on a curated list, and better migration features are much more effective ways to ensure we have users and decentralisation
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris @WhyNotZoidberg

Try using mas.to and then try using mastodon.social and tell me that mas.to is somehow worse.

Please do that, then comment.

I have actually done that.

Don't go by theory, go by empirical observation.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

the goal of Mastodon.social is to become too big to block.

If you want a "federated" social network with only one main instance just use Bluesky.

The whole point with Mastodon is that it doesn't need to grow. It is not a network that has to make a profit, so growing for the sake of growing is bad.

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris Mastodon has several times been spammed by Nazi and Terf botd from .social that has not been banned and I am happy to be on an instance who simply chooses to limit federation with .social since they have too few moderators (or simply choose to allow terfs and fascists) to handle their user base.
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris It is crucial to not use one server for a federated network. I see you moderation, and "not bothered" argument just as an excuse.

And you mention good UX but then later, new users who aren't "bother where they join" should bother to migrate to other server because they suddenly care where they joined?

There can be made a pool of servers chosen by public that will be on rotation, I would argue even that mastodon.social should cool off for a year at least.

in reply to BlokForge

@blokforge That is literally what i said, yes. Users who have joined with little knowledge will gain knowledge over time and move, which is why migration tools need improvement.

I agree that we shouldn't centralised, but I wouldn't be comfortable sending people to servers without reasonable moderation and sustainability policies.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris I read in other replies, .social is not great with that also and gets banned by some instances. Who is gmbh to decide what are policies good or bad ?

And as other people mentioned instances can be choosen, nobody requires all instances to be promoted. It's an issue that is solvable. I just don't see gmbh going in that way and just preserving power for itself.

in reply to BlokForge

@blokforge they are the developers of the software.

People's experience of the fediverse evolves over time. Sending a newcomer to a server that might block other popular servers, which results in that new user being unable to communicate with their friends, is a non-starter.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris what bad apologia for centralization and power grabbing by gmbh.
.social instance is not arbiter of anything, nor should be. Only reason they are powerfull is because of centralization that devs built in when they put .social as main instance. the gmail of fediverse.
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris

None of this is true. The moderation on e.g. mas.to is as good or better than on mastodon.social. I have used both instances for years.

"Most new users aren't that bothered about where they join."

So why send them to the biggest server? Why centralise the platform?

in reply to FediThing

because the mastodon developers can't guarantee users on instances outside it's control a good experience.

Other commenters have raised, for example, that they defederated from mastodon.social: imagine the impact on the user experience of a new user.

I can't speak to the readiness of specific instances, but I can say that the developers are right to think carefully about what the default experience for users should look like.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris

"because the mastodon developers can't guarantee users on instances outside it's control a good experience."

Again, just not true in reality. Centralisation makes moderation worse, not better.

Mastodon.social is already too large for them to moderate properly. Admins on other servers are constantly having to clean up after the lack of moderation on mastodon.social

It's the centralisation that causes the worst possible experience, because there is no way to have enough of a moderator to user ratio to have good moderation.

Decentralisation means more human moderators per person.

in reply to FediThing

I have seen few cases of mastodon.social not reacting to reports I made, but I have seen instances with extremely heavy handed moderation policies. Add to that performance and sustainability issues, and I can understand why developers made the choices they did.
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

What exactly do you think will happen if a majority of users are on one server?

It will make it more and more difficult to moderate mastodon.social, they will receive less and less help from volunteers, they will have to monetise, advertisers, VCs etc will come along and offer them money, and it will go down the path of enshittification.

The ENTIRE POINT of Mastodon is NOT to centralise. They said so themselves when they launched the project and called for donations.

Centralised social media leads to stuff like this: theguardian.com/technology/202…

Could there possibly be worse moderation than links to multiple genocides?

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

again, I think you are underestimating and thinking the worst of an excellent group of individuals.

Decentralisation is a core feature at the heart of Mastodon's design.

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

"Decentralisation is a core feature at the heart of Mastodon's design."

Not if it has most people on one instance. That is the opposite.

A few years ago before they promoted mastodon.social as default they were on about 10% of network, then 15%, last year 20% and now approaching 30%. Soon they will be a majority.

At that point, they can simply switch off federation and monetise and no one can stop them. If they run out of cash they may even feel obligated to do so.

This is based on bitter experience of many FOSS and libre projects turning to shit. Network effect from centralisation makes this danger worse.

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris

If you are willing to trust the people who run a centralised network, why the hell are you going to all the additional technical cost of decentralising it?

The entire point of decentralisation is to prevent it being possible so you don't have to trust someone not to sell out.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris "because the mastodon developers can't guarantee users on instances outside it's control"

it's spelled monetize, not guarantee. :flan_shrug:

in reply to FediThing

@jmaris

"So why send them to the biggest server? Why centralise the platform?"

Easier to monetize once the features are in place.

in reply to Woodfric

@wulfric sounds to me like you're assuming the worst about a handful of amazing people using software that they built.
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

They didn't build it on their own, they built it with volunteers and bits of other FOSS and donations and huge vast armies of people giving them good will.

When you centralise and take possession of the network those people built, the good will disappears.

I'm going by WHAT THEY SAID THEMSELVES when they started the project. They are breaking their own stated principles.

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

@wulfric

I never said they built it on their own. they are not centralising it: your choice has not been taken away from you, but sane defaults for new users is key. It seems you can't understand that then there is little point continuing the discussion.

in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

They ARE centralising it, they're knowingly promoting a server that is approaching a majority of the network.

At that point it is no longer meaningfully decentralised because they would have direct control over most of it.

"sane defaults for new users is key"

Are you saying mas.to is somehow "not sane" for example?

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

@wulfric I think I've made all the points I have to make in the thread above. Since there is nothing to add and you are repeating your talking points, I think this is a good place to end our conversation.
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris
They are the ones implementing the enshittification features like tracking URLs. I'm just watching the writing on the wall.
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris New users might not care, but active users and especially moderators care.

And not being comfortable directing users to a server with potentially bad moderation is no excuse for directing them to a server with intentionally bad moderation.

in reply to FediThing

Great suggestions. You should email them directly.
I don’t think they have pushed Mastodon.social on purpose to undermine others, but rather to make it easier for the average non techie user to join Mastodon. The average user has no idea about different servers, it would scare then away.

The improvements they are making prove they are in full support of the community. Perhaps they’ve been unsure how to solve the issue so they likely will welcome your email @Mastodon

in reply to FediThing

As much as I would love seeing rotating servers I doubt that's realistically possible for liability reasons, both towards the app stores and the law.

And not providing a default server at all leads to bad usability. I personally think that the approach neeqs to be different: More local and online groups need to provide their own servers for members so they can use them/switch to them.

(And mastodon.social will have financial trouble eventually anyways if thet grow too big and are forced to find a solution for the overcrowding...)

in reply to Max Lee ​

@the_moep

No, that's not true.

Mastodon gGmbH used to have rotating servers until a couple of years ago.

And they haven't stopped people using other servers, they've just emphasised mastodon.social while hiding the others behind "pick another server". If there was liability issues they would not have the pick another option at all.

in reply to FediThing

I honestly doubt it's that black and white. While I can understand that some app stores would decide it by exactly what is in the code of the app the actual law tends to go by intention.

And not advertising other platforms in an obvious way could potentially make the advertisement non-significant enough to not make them liable for the content included in it. (At least I don't see any advertisement and liability disclaimer next to the server selection in the app itself which would be required by law if they thought it was advertisement what they are doing with linking to third-party services)

in reply to Max Lee ​

@the_moep
No. There does not need to be a default derver.

This is contrary to the idea of decentralization, and that IS what you want with Gag ron

Please, spare me the cheap apologia for bullshit.

in reply to indyradio

@indyradio
I'm sorry, but having tech-illerate people find a compatible fediverse service on the web before even being able to use the app will make them just not use it. Of course I'm all for educating them about that they have a choice but the reality is that choice is not wanted at that point and offering them an easy way to experience the Fediverse is a valuable service to our movement as a whole.

And if the goal is to actually tranform how social media works then usability needs to be front and center, not an afterthought. So we need to identify what is stopping the Mastodon app from offering alternative servers in the app e.g. in a rotation or a list and solve those issues. Ignoring those issues and blaming the people that are fighting to better the whole situation will not help us, it hurts us.

The issues that I can instantly think of along with potential solutions:

  • As already mentioned: Liablity reasons e.g. in regards to stored user data. This can be solved by adjusting laws or clarifying their interpretations how advertisement of third-party services is treated. The same goes for app stores. They need to be forced to offer access to thear platforms along clear, democartically decided guidelines.
  • Moderation. This kinda follows the previous liability point but it has a different solution imo. While the sema legal issues exist if different servers have different content it could be solved in imo. easier ways. Either by listed servers using the same rules and moderation guidelines or even sharing moderation duties on a technical level. (Something that the Mastodon dev team recently laid the ground work for)
  • Compatibility. Mastodon.social regularly runs on more up to date software than others hence why it's easier for them to just offer their own server to ensure a good user experience. This could be solved by simply implementing version checks on the suggested servers or alternatively a better managed AcitvityPub protocol process which helps Mastodon to not have to rely on their own API instead of just the pure client-server ActivityPub spec.

Of course there's also another, more obvious solution for solving the whole issue imo: Transform the Mastodon gGmbH do an e.V. (registered association) or Genossenschaft (cooperative) or even move it into public EU management (once it's a real democracy) to allow democratic control of both the development and operation. (Unfortunately I kinda doubt that will happen but imo. on paper it's the best option)

in reply to FediThing

Have no idea, and I had same thoughts as you regarding centralization of masto.

Probably the real reason is because they want to have the most power over the network.

in reply to FediThing

Which general-purpose, multilingual instances have open inscriptions (without a moderator having to approve new members) and want this kind of attention?

(edited: typo)

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle

@lffontenelle

I've got a site at fedi.garden which recommends well-run smaller servers. If you want well-run servers with larger numbers of people too try joinmastodon.org/servers

in reply to FediThing

Just browsed the lists, and they are all great picks, nice work. Note, though, that "general" doesn't list any instance accepting posts in my native language, (Portuguese) and the two listed instances accepting the language all have moderation review before accepting new users. At a guess, neither if the two would like to be offered to random people joining the Fediverse.
in reply to FediThing

p.s. About people saying "We can trust them, stop being paranoid"...

This isn't a personal attack on Mastodon gGmbH or Eugen or any of the people currently there. They do seem nice people.

But are they going to be doing this forever? What happens when they leave? What happens when they run low on money?

Most of us know projects that went downhill when ownership changed, or when the project became so dependent on a particular sponsor that the sponsor effectively owned them.

The idea of decentralisation is to avoid these bad situations by spreading the network out so it can never end up in any single person or group's hands.

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

p.p.s. Also, the really REALLY correct answer to the question "Don't you trust Mastodon gGmbH?" is that trust shouldn't be going in one direction if lots of volunteers are working together on building a network.

If Mastodon gGmbH is saying that there is not any single server anywhere on the Fediverse that they trust to recommend, even the ones that have been going reliably and responsibly for many years, what does that say about Mastodon gGmbH as an organisation?

Does Mastodon gGmbH only trust things they control directly? If so, why are they expecting other people to trust them?

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

thank you!! 🙏

"Why isn't Mastodon gGmbH doing this? It's not technically difficult, they could make this change with just a few clicks and it would make a huge difference in keeping the Fediverse safe from takeover."

because, I believe, people get addicted to having power. they're like.. "we could decentralize it more.. buuuut.. it's kinda nice to have this influence for now.. to steer things in the right directions if we need to.. we'll decentralize it more later.."

that is my theory, of course; I can't prove this is the train of thought, but this basically always happens in almost every power structure, no matter how benevolent it starts out.

at some point, you need to jank the power away from these people, no matter how nice they seem.

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

Mastodon gGmbH had discussions with Meta, under NDA, that were never detailed. That was around the time Meta launched Threads, their 'Xitter killer'.

They are clearly infected with the 'growth at all costs' mentality of many startups, polluting the Fediverse with countless spammers & scammers.

They CANNOT be trusted and this is clearly yet another step in the wrong direction.

I will add that they are developing 'features' that are clearly toxic instead of moderation tools.

in reply to FediThing

masto developers aren't trusted because they're not trustworthy. Marginalized and harassed communities have been begging them for years to work on safety features.

AFAICT, Masto acts like they want to centralize their decentralized service. Which is why there are other, better Fediverse services.

in reply to FediThing

I know what they DON'T trust 😂 (*flails in a header-ly direction*)
in reply to FediThing

p.p.p.s. If someone wants to do something quick and simple to help stop centralisation, and if you're comfortable using Github, give a thumbs up in these issues on the official apps:

iOS app
github.com/mastodon/mastodon-i…

Android app
github.com/mastodon/mastodon-a…

in reply to FediThing

> Does Mastodon gGmbH only trust things they control directly? If so, why are they expecting other people to trust them?

DING DING DING DING

yep.

of course if you're a geeky coder person, or even a group of them, liaising with others may not be in your comfort zone.

but it's still the job in this case.

in reply to FediThing

Also, why would I trust them too much? I do trust forkable open source tools. I do trust EU based teams more than other. And I do trust that Fediverse is better than Meta, Bsky, etc. But to trust any one developer group to never go rotten in any future? Why? So many good teams have gone bad. So many good people have retired or moved to other things (bless them, they deserve rest and/or change if they want to). I've literally seen it all despite being only middle aged human.
Questa voce è stata modificata (3 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

there are a lot of people I trust and none that I would say should be in charge of the entire fediverse 🤷 me? Certainly not. My wife? Nope! My sister? No one!
in reply to FediThing

it's open source. Propose a patch perhaps. There you can make your case for such a change. 👀

I'm not saying this is bulletproof! 💙 But it might help advance the ball in accomplishing your goal of balancing the inbound funnel to fedi. ✌️

in reply to Nick Silkey 📻 N5ILK 🪓🪵 🪣💧

@nicksilkey

I opened an issue about it on the official iOS app as soon as it started happening in April 2023:

github.com/mastodon/mastodon-i…

Someone else opened a similar issue at the same time on the official Android app:

github.com/mastodon/mastodon-a…

Neither issue has been acted upon.

in reply to FediThing

How many of those servers want to be advertised? A lot of the bigger ones really struggled already on influx, without being prominently advertised. I guess a toggle would be nice. Though then you also run the risk of fascists just pouring in money to get as many instances as they can in that rotation - and they do fund stuff like that, so that also needs constant oversight. So I agree that the current solution has issues, but disagree, that it is as simple to fix as you propose.
in reply to FediThing

First you must understand the GMBH
is full of shit, and additionally is structured so it allows 1/3 of all income to go to the CEO.
Repeat that a few times, then tell me what you think.
in reply to FediThing

I have no opinion on the Mastodon gGmbH but picking a default server is so, so much more nuanced and compliacted than you make it out to be.

I'm in a similar boat with the #Conversations_im Jabber/XMPP client and the conversations.im default server. We started running that not because we wanted to run a server but because users requested that.

How long a server has been around has zero indication on how long it will be around.

in reply to FediThing

one idea I think that would be much more user friendly and help bump other servers would actually be a small survey upon attempting to sign up.

I only found my instance after already making an account on mastodon.social, because I didn't realize how the fediverse fully worked at the time. Had I been presented a small survey asking my primary language, my interests, preferred local community size (while also explaining what a community/instance is in the simplest terms possible), and how active I'd like myself or the community to be, I most likely would have ended up in my current instance on the first try. Should only be 5 questions max, and each question should be able to have some sort of relational link to data statistics about an instance.

Let instances choose to opt in to being part of the survey results, so some people can still stay more closed off if they want to.

in reply to FediThing

there could be also smarter ways than regular rotation. You can geotag the client to suggest servers geographically close to the client, or ask for the language of the user and suggest a random server declaring that language in metadata, or propose to users a list of topics with checkboxes and check in the descriptions of servers which mastodon instance is the best match for the topics and interests of the user, or a smarter combination of all these checks.
in reply to FediThing

Out of curiosity, do you know how the data in FediGarden is populated? I'm curious because my home instance has a 1000+ character limit but it doesn't show us tagged for that. Is that something we need to set up on our end or do we just track down a FediGardener and have them update it?
in reply to The VHS Wizard 🦝📼🧙

@thevhswizard

I just manually curate it, there is no automated process of any kind.

I can update your listing if you can let me know the exact character limit? Is it 1000?

I use the info listed in a server's desscription so if they don't mention the character limit I can't list it.

in reply to FediThing

too late, bub -
soon as the CEO finds out you exist, you will have troubles like I have.
He had nitwits follow me from the instances where I was banned, to pile on, continuously report, and harass other admins so I would be banned on other systems.

The Greeks don't buy their crap, they make honest use of the software to the extent possible.

in reply to FediThing

I remember when they added the button to sign up directly on m.s - it was because many potential new users were getting overwhelmed by choice of instance to join. It helped with onboarding when they added it, but today it probably needs to change to be a revolving carousel of instances who've committed to the server covenant instead of only going to m.s
in reply to FediThing

I got trolled so badly for agreeing with you, that itself is a statement.
I see a repeat of familiar programmed behavior by a GMBH which is not to be trusted. @fou
in reply to FediThing

Speaking of mastodon.social, why the gGmbH German non-profit hosts its server in San Francisco, United States?

fedidb.com/servers/mastodon.so…

in reply to FediThing

That button is part of a state controlled package.
Can you reveal the secret?
You'd have to go back prior to 2015, while it seemed quiet.
in reply to FediThing

see, I get why they do that. It is a massive risk to an organization to tell users to make an account on another organization's server that they have zero control over moderation, uptime, privacy policy, future changes to the above etc. especially if account migration is a hassle that doesn't fully migrate everything.

But also the fediverse needs as even of a distribution of servers as possible for good network health, and by pushing users who aren't certain only onto a single server a good chunk of them will remain on that server indefinitely thereby weighting the Fediverse towards a handful of specific servers.

I think in the long term, improving account migration can help mitigate all of that risk and enable a rotating whitelist of open-application Mastadon servers for new users to blindly click join on

in reply to FediThing

The weird thing is, for a time they said to not join .social because there were too many users on it so they pushed .online instead. That's why I'm on .online since I didn't really know much. Rotating the recommended server like you said further down would be a good change (but it would need moderation to ensure what they recommend is safe).
in reply to FediThing

In that screenshot, they're not hiding other options -- your circle is! It says "Pick another server" right there.

I guess various servers need to promote their particular advantages. I know for myself, I get tired of the 500 character limit.

in reply to FediThing

I don't see a problem with Mastodon promoting their own server over others.

The fediverse isn't only Mastodon: it's other compatible ActivityPub apps and communities. Pixelfed is a good example.

Other communities/servers should promote their communities in their own way, it should be up to them to do so.

in reply to FediThing

Good points, as exemplified by me, joining mastodon.social out of laziness and incompetence. I do intend to migrate, though I haven't gotten around to it..

I had hoped the legal form of Mastodon gGmbH would protect us users somewhat from the general enshittification of centralized platforms, as there are some legal strings attached to maintain the "g" in gGmbh. I'm not a lawyer though, so idk.

Why not ask them directly, maybe they would like to comment?
@Mastodon
@Gargron

in reply to FediThing

it's funny because I got banned from mastodon.social for literally no reason.

I moved my followers from another instance and the next day my account was banned, I was not able to move my followers back to the previous instance, so I had to start again.

I don't post anything NSFW, hate content or anything like that, just gaming and anime.

in reply to FediThing

@FediThing, мне не очень понятно чем крупный инстанс может навредить. Как будто бы Fediverse нужно для сообществ, а не блоггеров. А потому сообщества могут поднять сервер себе и не волноваться что происходит на крупных инстансах.

Если сервера mastodon.social могут выдержать такое крупное число юзеров, то классно же. Зачем за это их винить? Возможно, такой масштаб продемонстрирует новые явления, которых раньше не было в Fediverse и откроет новые направления развития.

in reply to FediThing

they should have it as random, and then people can switch servers if they want to.
in reply to FediThing

point users to 3rd party instances without pushing money or manpower the same direction feels like a horrible idea. I'm not a fan of rotating instances.
Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
FediThing

@regendans

Yes, but new people aren't going to see those because they will almost all just search app stores for "Mastodon" and see the official app.

The official app is the crucial way of affecting which server new people join.

in reply to FediThing

how a
About just one button that says "pick server" that way the end user needs to choose and just like st the grocery store. If they pick your item, you win!
in reply to FediThing

yes let’s talk about this. The reason why maston.social keeps growing is that it doesn’t suck, and most other servers suck. You’ve got a couple of years on some other server on average before server owner burnout or server conflict drama, and you can’t move your old posts.
Unknown parent

mastodon - Collegamento all'originale
FediThing

@killick @txtx

This isn't mastodon.social just dominating Mastodon, it's mastdon.social dominating the entire Fediverse.

Mastodon.social currently has about 28.7% of all active Fedi accounts including Pixelfed.

A lot of us have put many hours of free labour and/or money towards Mastodon's software development, helping people get onto Mastodon and how to use it. This was on the assumption that Mastodon gGmbH wanted to build a decentralised network, which is what they claimed they did (here's their own promo video: fedi.video/w/cbQE3NRw76FayQCSd… ).

Why should they benefit from our free labour to build something they control?

in reply to FediThing

I believe the main issue here is that it's hard to figure out which server operators are reliable and will provide long-term, stable and standardized instance hosting. On which basis would Mastodon gGmbH recommend servers?

They would need some kind of due-diligence or know-your-server-operator process, including somewhat regular check-ins with said operators to ensure they don't send possible users to "bad" instances.

All of which is very heavy on resources - cost and time wise.

So I guess for now they opted to just do it themselves. Would also match their latest offering at joinmastodon.org/hosting .

in reply to born2chill

@b2c

"it's hard to figure out which server operators are reliable and will provide long-term, stable and standardized instance hosting"

No, it's not.

There are servers that have been going since 2017 reliably and with good moderation. I specifically mention these in the thread.

You can look some of these up at fedi.garden/servers-sorted-by-…

in reply to FediThing

a while ago I blocked #mastodonSocial because too much #antisemitism came from users at that instance. Lost a few followers, but so be it.
in reply to FediThing

It should be taken into consideration that it might make sense for it to be a default option for users who do not understand what Fediverse is. I don't think this is the best solution. A quick and clear explanation (perhaps animation) of how Fediverse works can be provided, followed by just the server selection page.
in reply to FediThing

They should approach this matter in the same way as CCC did with the jabber.ccc.de Jabber server: Close registrations, ask users to decentralise.

#decentralise @FediThing

in reply to FediThing

Sensitive content

in reply to FediThing

Well... I've Moved from Mastodon.social to Mas.to, and it's fun here too.
in reply to FediThing

Astounds me that as the also-ran of also-ran social media platforms, the denizens of Fedi still spend their time stabbing themselves in the back 😡 This “OMG mastodon.social will kill Mastodon!!!!!” was all the rage 2 1/2 years ago … and here we all are still waiting patiently for the Fedipocalypse.

There are plenty of things wrong with Mastodon, but the default server selection is waaaay down the list.

Unknown parent

@lexinova @wulfric I actually do, though. That's the thing.
in reply to Jordan Maris 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 #NAFO

@jmaris @lexinova
If they aren't intentionally steering Mastodon towards the commercial cliff, they might want to step back and look forward.

My interactions with one of the devs was less than pleasant because I saw the feature being touted as a major step towards being like X and Meta.

in reply to FediThing

I love how the "make multiple instances work together" dev team is actively trying to put everyone on a single centralized instance /sarcasm
Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

Parola filtrata: nsfw

in reply to FediThing

Questions. I’m on mastodon.online. Is it more or less just an alias of mastodon.social? Does it represent decentralization or not really?
in reply to Don Ray

@donray

Mastodon.online is also owned by Mastodon gGmbH so in that sense it is centralising, because they have control over both it and mastodon.social.

in reply to FediThing

Thanks. That’s what I was thinking. I do like the idea that it’s not based in the US.
in reply to FediThing

I am glad to know this, and yeah, I think the decentralization premise is really important.
I am one of the non-technical people referenced in your thread.

I didn't onboard through mobile apps, but I left my first instance because I started having difficulties with my trending feed and had no clue why or who to talk to about it.

I moved to the .social because I figured it was going to be more stable due to higher numbers.
I still don't know how to fully navigate the servers here

in reply to Manda

@lucyruthe

If it's any help, I've tried to collect together a site with well-run reliable servers at fedi.garden

There's a section with them listed by the year they were founded, so you can see which ones have a long track record of stability: fedi.garden/servers-sorted-by-…

Higher numbers can cause less stability because it means it's harder to moderate, as there is a lower ratio of moderator to user.

"I still don't know how to fully navigate the servers here"

If you think of it as a provider, sort of like your phone provider? Once you're on one server, you can talk to people on other servers seamlessly 🙂

in reply to FediThing

That's a great resource. Thanks!
Though it still feels like I need to be inside the system in order to figure out options.

Provider bit makes sense to me. It's the knowing the options in advance that feels complicated.

in reply to Manda

@lucyruthe

Is there something I could do to make it easier or more friendly to use?

For example, would it help if there was just a single server suggestion on the front page? (If there was a single suggestion, it would be a general server that has been around for a while.)

in reply to FediThing

I appreciate your helpfulness!
I kinda feel settled on the current platform, so I'm not looking to move right now.

Not savvy enough to know the options, but this feels like something that would be useful to people looking to get started. It was the getting started bit where I wasn't even sure what I should be looking for.

Whatever inventory page I was looking at from the outside was super basic. I suspect it's the "outside the system" information that is harder to come by.

in reply to Manda

@lucyruthe

Okay, fair enough 🙂 Good luck with whichever server you use!

If I could just ask one more quick thing though as it's a really interesting point you raised:

By "outside the system" do you mean outside the Mastodon-branded apps and Mastodon-branded websites?

in reply to FediThing

By "outside the system," I mean without a Mastodon account established. It felt like I needed to sign up for an account before I got access to more detailed server information.
in reply to Manda

Ah, that's interesting, thank you 🙏

(I run an account at @FediTips and a site at fedi.tips which try to help new people, so this is really useful info!)

Questa voce è stata modificata (4 settimane fa)
in reply to FediThing

If the Fedi was worth 2 cents, certainly something like this would get more than a handful of visits.

Watch, almost no action here. If it was a link from my website, the Nazis would grab the IP address and start a full out attack, and prevent any social media interaction.

No one else will post this either, or at least you will not see it.

kafeneio.social/@indyradio/115…