The main issue with Fediverse is the vast majority of people don't know what it is. And I would suspect that most readers of Hacker News only know about Mastodon. The Fediverse needs the same kind of evangelical missionaries that made the free software movement such a big deal.
> main issue with Fediverse is the vast majority of people don't know what it is
More awareness won't help while the churn is so high. The Fediverse seems to be happy staying small, actively disdaining the sorts of user-friendly moves that would give them mass appeal (but in the process, perhaps, destroy something its current users find special).
I still think p2p is the way to go. When I get some time, I want to spin up a little p2p app around sharing ad-free news and commentary. (Articles + photos + threads.)
It can all be ephemeral, because 99% of the use is in the short-term. I rarely if ever access old tweets or Reddit threads.
The reason why these things don't take off with non-nerds is because the UI and UX of open source tools almost always sucks. That's it. There's nothing more to it.
Over the weekend there was a post about XMPP and somebody asked for a client with the same level of UX as Telegram. There were a few replies, but none of them were what I would say were anywhere near the same level.
For example one of them had an option to choose between three different methods of encrypting chats, and it was one of the most prominent UI features in the chat window. That's great if you want to feel like James Bond and encrypted chat is your main use case, but 99.9% of people are just sending memes and photos of their cats and don't even know what encrypted means.
Element is doing quite well in this department, but last time I tried (admitidely a couple of years ago) there were still some edge cases.
This point is confusing to me because there are so many clients available. Not only in different projects (Misskey/Firefish/Sharkey, Akkoma/Pleroma, glitch-soc), but also from the various compatible clients in the web and mobile (Elk, Semaphore/Enafore/Pinafore, Ice Cubes, Fedilab). Many instances also tweak their frontend to make UX adjustments, which is a lot more difficult in closed source projects.
> the UI and UX of open source tools almost always sucks.
One interesting outcome of Reddit changing their API pricing was long-time 3rd-party Reddit apps shutting down. Some of those added Lemmy support to their existing UI and importantly thought through new user behavior (like showing a default instance vs forcing users to sign up).
There's still work to be done, but if we're talking about the different between the Official Reddit client and the (now defunct) Boost for Reddit, the latter had better UX. Now that Boost only supports Lemmy and the Reddit app keeps getting enshittified the UX argument is harder to make.
The mastodon web client seems pretty similar, qualitatively, to twitters web client. Granted cross-instance search is not a thing but in terms of the timeline and how you interact with it it's largely identical.
It depends on what you mean by emphemeral because if you mean thr data's existence I would be against it. When I'm new to a domain or topic, I reference old threads all the time. I save links for other people and as reference points for me to dive into later.
Yeah a lot of stuff is what I wouldn't care about 2 minutes after I read it, but the protocol can't really know what any given person will want to come back to.
The Fediverse is not a single entity. Anyone who thinks it can be improved, can improve it. There are lots of different systems that are part of the Fediverse. It's not all Mastodon, and some of them have a completely different approach.
Yes, the appeal the Fediverse is that its lack of mass appeal keeps it away from the inevitable Eternal September or Enshitification or at least delays it.
In a small way, we can have the Internet of old back, the one where in order to participate in communities online, you weren't driven by algorithmic feeds setup to push ads in front of you constantly, or just generally shit posting about whatever pop culture moment.
I don't really want everyone to come, just the people who would have shown up in the early days of the internet when it was hard. The clout chasers and tabloid purveyors can stay right where they are.
The Mastodon communities in general have been vehemently against Threads' ActivityPub integration and even go as far as pledging to block Threads preemptively and threaten to alienate instances that won't do so.
I understand their concern (I still, however, think it is extremely overblown), but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Even me, a techie, hesitate to sign up for some random instances ran by people I don't know, and with the risk of it getting shut down at the mercy of said people. Right in this thread, you will also see people that advocate for keeping it niche. That is completely fine too, but the Fediverse not taking off is partly self-inflicted and one could even argue that it is in fact the goal.
You could run a battery optimized, opportunistically available mastodon instance from your phone, but Apple and Google won't let you. The amount of wasted compute in everyone's hands is staggering.
Something like https://www.manyver.se/ ? It is available on Google Play, Apple App Store and F-Droid.
It seems they have had some issues with Google Play and the App Store with their weird catch-all policies, requiring integration with Google/Apple login etc. but they have managed to work around it for the time being.
How is the relevant to the conversation? Sure, we have very powerful processors in many devices in our home that are idle much of the time. What, exactly, is your point.
Don't be too sure of that. Plenty of instances have preemptively blocked Meta and it's likely that if and when Threads goes AP, more will follow. Some of us still remember Eternal September and would like to avoid a repeat.
But by then there should be well in excess of 200-300m people on Threads.
Many of them will want to converse with Mastodon users and vice versa and I am sure there will be instances available that will be happy to allow that conversation to happen. Because ultimately it's all about users not instances.
And that's fine, but chances are that any instances which would federate with Threads would probably get defederated by many of the instances which refuse to federate with it. We've already seen this behaviour in fediblock drama, where merely being able to see content from "bad" instances is enough to get your own blocked by an entire union of censorious Mastodon admins.
If I'm on instance A and my friend is on instance B and she is talking to someone on Threads (instance C) and instance A blocks instance C .. it just means I won't see posts from instance C. So maybe my friend on instance B gets into a conversation with someone on instance C. In my view I just don't see the C side of the convo. No harm, no foul.
A lot of the fediblock stuff is not 'well they won't defederate from the BADPEOPLE so i'll defederate from them too!'. In fact I'm not sure I've seen an example of that actually happening. You often see grousing and calls for it, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen. Most of the block lists i've seen are simply instances of 'free speech warriors' who refuse to moderate calls for violence from their userbase, instances that are straight up 'we are nazis' here, or instances that are extremely sketchy porn.
> Free software became successful because it rendered things mostly obsolete ie commercial Unix and proprietary compilers.
Free software became successful in as much as it reduced the cost for companies selling other things to consumers. Would Google or Facebook be viable if they had to pay Microsoft (or Sun) a license per server. Linux enabled them to have a free operating system to run all their data tracking for ads. Free software reduced the cost for Apple to develop the he software that powers iPhones and Macs.
For the most part, the end user actually doesn’t use the free software, rather it is a part of something else they pay for.
> For the most part, the end user actually doesn’t use the free software, rather it is a part of something else they pay for.
That's surprisingly true even when the FOSS alternative is a perfectly suitable drop in replacement for a popular proprietary program. How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using LibreOffice? When FOSS became more popular than the proprietary competition, it was only because the FOSS product was 10x better (think Firefox and Chrome vs Internet Explorer or VLC vs Windows Media Player and Quicktime) not because users actually chose FOSS.
Another example that proves this is how the single biggest increase in Linux desktop market share was likely due to a gaming handheld called the Steam Deck that is actually a Linux laptop. Linux allows Valve to sell gaming hardware without paying license fees to Microsoft or creating their own operating system.
The reality of FOSS is a far cry from the ideals of Stallman, ESR, et.al. that were the original rationale behind FOSS licenses.
> How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using LibreOffice?
How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using Google Docs/Sheets/...? LibreOffice doesn't replace Office for the same reason why Sheets doesn't replace Excel despite being free. Huge difference in functionality if you're more than a casual user
Same applies to most free alternatives to industry standard software. FreeCAD isn't a replacement for Solidworks, GIMP isn't a replacement for photoshop, etc
> Linux allows Valve to sell gaming hardware without paying license fees to Microsoft or creating their own operating system.
From reviews of Windows-based gaming handhelds (ROG Ally, etc.), the cost of a Windows license is likely secondary compared to just how badly the stock Windows UI and power management (and incessant forced updates) suit the form factor, and Microsoft don’t look like they can be bothered to accomodate this comparatively small market (at least judging by their public behaviour so far).
That’s not necessarily to say that this was Valve’s original motivation. I think it’s just as likely they were setting up a fallback position for when Microsoft tried to push them out of game distribution using their Xbox platform. But right now it wouldn’t make sense for Valve to switch back even if that problem disappeared overnight.
I think MS won't bother but instead build an xbox portable on the same type of platform with a tweaked version of whatever bastardized windows runs on xbox. Then maybe they will license the software stack to your ASUSes and whomever.
> "Would Google or Facebook be viable if they had to pay Microsoft (or Sun) a license per server."
Google and Facebook could afford to pay for expensive servers, even more expensive datacenters to house them in, and fat compensation packages to their employees and execs, so obviously yes. Plenty of industries exist that have high capex costs and manage to get off the ground just fine. Continuing to give away free software to startups with millions of VC dollars raised that are growing to billion dollar businesses no longer makes sense.
> The main issue with Fediverse is the vast majority of people don't know what it is.
Who knew what the Internet was when it started spreading into the mainstream? People don't need to know what something is or does to start interacting with it, it either needs a smooth enough onboarding process that people can easily experiment, or it needs some compelling value that they've heard about from others to make the extra effort worth it. Not sure where the Fediverse is on either of these points.
I imagine I don't know what "the Fediverse" is because I'd assume it to refer to a singular network (hence "the") but Mastodon is definitely not any kind of a single network.
One of the things I hear repeated in startup circles is that a product needs to be 10x better than the thing it’s replacing to have a realistic shot at displacing it. I honestly don’t feel like even if every single social media user in the world was exposed to the fediverse that it would be compelling enough to cause a critical mass to switch. What does it do better than the sites users are already on?
I wonder if school kids could be those missionaries. Especially with the difficult signup, it could create like an "elite" social circle of people that made it... Leading to word-of-mouth advertisement because everyone is helping their friends choose a server and signup and dealing with the quirks.
