[appplication]

I seems to be missing the mark and satirizing the users for not understanding or liking a poor user experience, when it would make more sense to satirize the platform itself for failing to appropriately consider that when given a choice, users aren’t going to choose the difficult and annoying thing, but rather the simple and understandable one.

Criticisms of mastodon/lemmy/fediverse are 100% warranted. People try it and give up because it’s a confusing mess compared to any alternative. So either the product is so complex it can’t be simplified, or the developers of the project are so ignorant to user feedback that they aren’t willing to prioritize simplifying it. Both of these do not bode well for long term success or wide adoption.

There is also this sense I get when interacting with some fediverse enthusiasts that perhaps the complexity is good because it keeps the communities small, or if you can’t figure it out you shouldn’t use it. All I have to say about that perspective is that it’s pretty damn pretentious, as well as at odds with the messaging that these are meant to be replacement services for widely adopted social networks.

[rakoo]

> So either the product is so complex it can’t be simplified, or the developers of the project are so ignorant to user feedback that they aren’t willing to prioritize simplifying it. Both of these do not bode well for long term success or wide adoption.

The fediverse is not a product. The fediverse is an organization of humans willing to interact together. There are dozens of softwares, documentation on how it works and how to migrate, tens of thousands of instances each with different rules. The fediverse is a universe, not a plastic-wrapped package you buy and consume. The goal is not to capture the population as fast as possible, as seems to be the only valid metric on here, because that would mean coming back to where we started and not having advanced a single step

> if you can’t figure it out you shouldn’t use it

If you don't want to take the time to understand what it is, then you maybe you shouldn't use it. It's like coming to the house of a stranger: you don't know them, you try to understand the rules, ask around, maybe remove your shoes at the door or at least make sure it's ok if you keep them. But if you expect to enter without saying a word, picking beers in the fridge and shouting at people that's just rude. The fediverse is built to prevent exactly that.

> these are meant to be replacement services for widely adopted social networks.

No, there shouldn't be a replacement for social networks, the same way the web is not a replacement for something else: the web is one application that equalizes access and publication. The fediverse is a universe for everyone to have a voice and discuss and organize. Make conversing easy by giving back control to people.

[appplication]

> The fediverse is a universe for everyone to have a voice and discuss and organize. Make conversing easy by giving back control to people.

I think my main issue is that while this is great idealism, it’s fundamentally hypocritical in practice. The fediverse is not a place for everyone when the vast majority of people do not understand how or why to use it. It is not accessible across cultural barriers, and it’s not accessible to those with lower levels of technological literacy.

Bitcoin proponents play the same game about decentralization: centralized industries no longer in control, power to the people, etc. Except instead of just centralized power to a new group, whoever ended up being early adopters.

The fediverse is a small group of technologically literate folks doing the same thing, but with social networks. It’s an (intentional or otherwise) homage to the old web, before Eternal September, which I totally understand the desire for. But it claims to be a new voice of the people, when really it’s just a new platform for the voice of the few. Those fed up with the actual voice of the masses (it turns out most people don’t have much interesting to say, and probably don’t agree with you). It instead replaces the mass of voices with a smaller, pre-filtered set of voices. It is its own echo chamber.

We certainly need viable competition to the massively centralized, corporate controlled internet that we live in today. The fediverse is a good experiment, and quite likely in the right direction. But it’s activists and participants need to a reckon it’s actual nature rather than the idealist model they claim it to be. Right now there’s a whole lot of drinking of the kool aid, which will only be to its detriment long term.

If the fediverse is a universe for everyone, then it should be accessibility über alles

[rakoo]

I understand what you mean and I fully agree. We want everyone to get rid of capitalist networks, take matter in their hands and decide by themselves. It's not far from democracy actually. But it's totally true that doing so takes time and energy that only a minority possesses, and learning how to use the fediverse is an activity itself.

But contrary to what you say, there is an ever growing amount of resources and orgs that take the active role of welcoming and guiding people into the network. This is where change happens: by teaching others, by taking time with them, by showing them, opening an account for them, having a space where they can come. It takes a lot of time and it's why the growth of open networks isn't as fast, but it's ok because that's not the point. The point is to make it together. It's not a technical problem, it's a social problem, and we're going to solve it with social solutions, not more javascript.

So, yes, it is only self-learnable by an elite. But no, it doesn't mean it is only for the elite. It just means tech isn't the only way.

[phoe-krk]

I don't think it's satirizing the users; it successfully highlights an existing problem of people leaving before trying, and I agree with this highlight as an avid user of the Fediverse.