[lemiffe]

I had the same issue described in the article... how do you choose a community?

It was the first question I had when looking into Mastodon, and a few minutes in I closed the tabs.

I don't want to choose a community, I want a single place/domain I rely on, I don't care if the backend is decentralised, I want the entry as a new user to be as low as possible, I need to understand the product in a few sentences.

They lost me as a potential user, I wonder how many more they lost. That entry barrier (just as with UX / registration forms) has to be as low as possible.

[xaduha]

If you think in these terms you're better off staying on Twitter and that's completely fine.

[websitejanitor]

Ordinary people will sign up for Bluesky instead of Mastodon. Removing friction is absolutely essential to growing a user base.

Not everyone finds value in signaling how technical they are by overcoming/dealing with FOSS jank

[ahelwer]

If choosing one of several instances requires too high of activation energy then that legitimately is a "you" problem. You've circumscribed your own abilities to such an extent that it limits you to centralized for-profit social networks.

> They lost me as a potential user

Since mastodon instances don't profit off of users (actually they cost money), this isn't really a tragedy. You're approaching mastodon with a customer mentality. This isn't a sale being made! Nobody is losing out on profiting off your time & attention! This is you choosing whether you want to keep feeding from the intentionally-insanity-causing trough of social networks that monetize attention.

[romwell]

>If choosing one of several instances requires too high of activation energy then that legitimately is a "you" problem.

No it's not.

The reasons why were outlined in the article, but I'll re-iterate them:

1. Choosing a community has long-lasting consequences for the user:

-a: Losing an account due to server being unstable or unable to keep up with growth is a risk;

-b: Choice of community determines the user's ability to communicate with other users, due to the community whitelist/blacklist nature of moderation. Join a "wrong" community, good luck being seen by anyone;

2. Choice of a server is supposed to reflect the identity of the user, and they will be treated differently on the entire network depending on which community they join

-a: The moderators of the instance you join can kick you off the entire network for violating the rules of that community, even if your activity is elsewhere;

-b: In addition to other users not being able to interact with you at all if your instance is blacklisted by the admins of another instance, you will be judged by others depending on which instance you join - so you need to know what reputation the users of a community have on the network before joining the network

-c: Instance admins have complete control over your account, including the ability to read your messages and kick you off the network because of things you say in your communications, so the user needs to know the reputation of the admins on the network before they join it

>> They lost me as a potential user

>Since mastodon instances don't profit off of users (actually they cost money), this isn't really a tragedy.

Oh right, why does a social network need users for, after all?

Are you kidding me? It is a tragedy for a social network if nobody uses it.

Social network users aren't just customers - they are also the product, part of the value proposition. Both in their identities and the content they create.

Mastodon has far less to offer by design, so it's a no-go for me.

You can say "oh what a tragedy", but I'm easily in the top 1% of users on reddit with nonzero karma by either post/comment karma/number of comments/amount of text typed; so people like me are what keeps a platform alive.

Because we give others a reason to log in.

And since choosing an instance effectively means choosing an audience - yes, it is a hurdle for content creators in particular, and your dismissive attitude is an indicator that it's not an issue that is understood well by fans of the platform.

Which is why it's doomed.

[yborg]

>Which is why it's doomed.

Welp, time to get the T-shirts made. "Mastodon : Doomed Since 2016. No seriously, it's doomed."

[romwell]

>Welp, time to get the T-shirts made. "Mastodon : Doomed Since 2016. No seriously, it's doomed."

It will be an absolute hit with the five people who still use it in a decade.

Seriously, this dialogue reads like this to me:

-Hey, Mastodon has a severe flaw by design where your identity is owned by the server and not you, which kind of defeats the point of federation

-Why do you hate federated networks so much?! You just don't get it. Go away, we'll be better off without you anyway.

[ahelwer]

Some people are fundamentally product-brained and fail to metabolize the concept of federated social media. That's fine, it's better without them.

> You can say "oh what a tragedy", but I'm easily in the top 1% of users on reddit with nonzero karma by either post/comment karma/number of comments/amount of text typed; so people like me are what keeps a platform alive.

I'm sorry but I audibly laughed when I read this.

Mastodon is where you go to hang out with friends, colleagues, and fellow hobbyists. You go there to have a good time and learn from others. People obsessed with building their personal brand or audience or upvote score embody much of what people hate about other forms of social media. The platform is much improved without them.

[romwell]

>People obsessed with building their personal brand or audience or upvote score embody

Are you projecting? None of that is in what I said; I just provided an easy metric.

How about, people thank me for what I write.

And it's not "product-brained" to say that an author writes to be read, a music maker wants to be heard, and an educator wants to reach as many people as could benefit from it.

>You go there to have a good time and learn from others.

Which goes to show, you need others to be there.

And the others you learn from matter.

>Some people are fundamentally product-brained and fail to metabolize the concept of federated social media. That's fine, it's better without them.

Look, if "metabolizing concepts" of federated social is a requirement for a social network, but understanding concerns of others (evidently) is not, then everyone else is better without the social network of such people too.

[ahelwer]

You fundamentally approach social networks with a producer/consumer mindset. Which is great, for some social networks. Except consuming content isn't very social. People aren't friends with a performer on stage (I believe this relationship is derogatorily called "parasocial"). I like social networks that involve people I can viably interact with in a friendly way, not in a way that constantly requires them to perform for their audience. See popular twitter accounts complaining about reply guys or people trying to riff with them generally. There are plenty of these friendly interactions on mastodon, because you can literally have them with everybody! The platform doesn't suffer because self-styled creators don't use it!

> but understanding concerns of others (evidently) is not

Your concerns can be understood without being catered to. Not everything has to be fit for your purposes. The world keeps turning without your permission.

Look fundamentally this argument is pointless. If you like mastodon then use it; lots of people do, certainly enough to make it worthwhile, and arguing about whether it will fail is a pointless exercise in trying to predict the future. Whining about how it doesn't meet your standards doesn't matter. It isn't a product that a company loses out on profit by failing to sell to you. From our brief interaction here I can tell you the platform really isn't greatly diminished by your lack of presence.

[romwell]

     Arguing about whether [Mastodon] will fail is a pointless exercise in trying to predict the future.

Well, that's exactly what we're doing here. That's the point of the article, and this discussion.

On that note:

    *Some people* are fundamentally product-brained and fail to metabolize the concept of federated social media. *That's fine, it's better without them.*

    *You* fundamentally approach social networks with a producer/consumer mindset.[...] *The platform doesn't suffer because self-styled creators don't use it!*

    *People* obsessed with building their personal brand or audience or upvote score embody much of what people hate about other forms of social media. *The platform is much improved without them.*

    *Whining* about how it doesn't meet your standards *doesn't matter*. From our brief interaction here *I can tell you the platform really isn't greatly diminished by your lack of presence.*

In two comments, you managed to say 4 times that the platform would be better off without someone like me (where, each time, you are assuming something about me as if it were a fact). What gives?

    I like social networks that involve people I can viably interact with in a friendly way

Was that an example of it?

    Your concerns can be understood without being catered to. [...] *The world keeps turning without your permission.*

Pardon me, but here's how it looks on my end:

>Me: I think the platform would have been better for everyone if your identity on the platform weren't tied to the instance you sign up with by design.

>You: your whining doesn't matter, and the platform is better off without you

Is that how you think conversations should go? Genuinely curious at this point.