[bluesign]

Unfortunately with its current design it will end up being "echo chambers".

There are two main problems needs to be solved.

- Identity ( it shouldn't be tied to a single server ) - Federating with selective servers ( more importantly "not federating" with some servers )

Only solution now is to keep your own server ( and federate with other servers that interests you ) but I don't think it is scalable.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> it will end up being "echo chambers".

The more I use social media in its various forms, the more I think that for most people this would be feature. As much as people claim to want to be shown diverse viewpoints, what really makes them happy is constant confirmation of their own existing views. So for most (not all) people, this effect will eventually put them into an echo chamber like environment cause that's where they feel most comfortable.

Therefore, platforms that cater to this tendency will be more successful than ones that don't (provided they hit critical mass, which is a pre-requirement, otherwise there is not enough content/interactions one way or another).

[angio]

If you run your own server, aren't you risking being banned from some instances if you don't ban instances they don't like? So there is no real upside compared to joining existing instances (other than having a better identity).

[bluesign]

I think doesn't work like that, but I am not 100% sure.

[cykros]

This is 100% the issue. When Mastodon started, it was like when IRC started -- one big server you could talk to just about everyone on. These days, it's like IRC was in 2000 or so -- many different servers you could talk to your small group on, but you'd end up joining a whole bunch of different servers to get your reach across, and unlike IRC, that really gets in the way of things like re-tooting and other broadcast issues.

It's not so much that it's a problem so much as that it makes it a poor choice for a Twitter replacement. Is Statusnet (a la identi.ca) still a thing?