[sinkasapa]

I don't find BookWyrm to be confusing at all. I assume most people use many applications without diving into every single feature or learning an underlying API that may be available. Why should BookWyrm be evaluated according to a different standard? I feel like you're conflating your confusion with how the fediverse works with a particular application that you don't seem to have evaluated based on its own merits.

[lf-non]

I tend to evaluate a service based on what the service provider advertises as selling points. In case of BookWyrm, the very first feature listed in the home page is that its Decentralized. As a user I'd want to understand how that is an advantage for me - it would seem I can't without getting familiar with underlying protocol.

I have nothing against BookWyrm, I'd like to see such initiatives succeed.

[rsolva]

You can use BookWyrm without thinking about the federated aspect, and I think many do. The benefits is that you are not signing up to a walled garden and that people from other communities can follow and interact with you.

We have gotten so accustomed to global, closed off services (like Instagram, Twitter etc) that getting to choose from several communities with different rules and themes confuses us. But this is in fact how most forums and other online communities functioned before the age of Facebook etc, only now the communuties have the ability to talk to each other.

Maybe what the fediverse needs is a clearer story. I have found that most people get Mastodon or other ActivityPub-enabled services much more if I do not lead with the decentralized features, but the fact that it is ad-free and without algorithms deciding what you see (and not) in your feed. The interoperability is something they come around to appreciat later on.