Mastodon has seen a renewed interest these last few days, but when you look at the statistics mastodon.social siphons the biggest part of the pie, it sees a few thousands new sign-ups a day, while medium sized instance and smaller ones only get a few, sometimes just single digits increase.
This has been exacerbated since mastodon changed its UI both on web and mobile apps, to make the flagship instance the default one for sign-up in an effort to lower the entry barrier, which on the same time is leading to unhealthy concentration, on a platform that advocates for decentralization through federation.
Do you think this is the way forward on the fediverse ?
#mastodon #pixelfed #lemmy #fediverse
IDK if Mastodon has a good way to port accounts but I think its good to have people first join a basic instance and then move to something more specialized once they get used to the platform
It’s not an issue. As long as .social is able to maintain the load.
The good thing about decentralization is that at any moment anyone could open a new instance and it would work perfectly fine. It does not matter if one instance have more or less users.
If it lowers the entry barrier it is welcome. It should not matter at all.
It is an issue if .social ever decides to “Be evil”, and utilized their outsized influence over the rest of the 'verse.
The thing about the fediverse is that it’s incredibly easy to make an instance and they are all compatible. So if any instance becomes evil people just have to seamlessly move away.
It’s not like twitter where if the owner become evil there’s nothing to do. Here you just move instance and be done with it, still the same platform, still the same users.
and they are all compatible.
This is not a given. Anyone can fork the protocol. If they are a large enough instance, they can include evil features in their fork, and block any instance that doesn’t use that fork. The users of competing forks then don’t have access, and their users move to a cooperating instance.
It has happened before; It will happen again.
Or even change protocols. Mastodon used to use OStatus before it changed to ActivityPub. And some platforms are multi-protocol, like Hubzilla and Friendica. Whether they are compatible depends on which protocols they have turned on.
When have that happened? Within the fediverse?
Threads tried and failed to do that with mastodon. I think the fediverse is well thought to prevent that even by big actors.
Until communities within instances can federate with each other this kind of consolidation is likely inevitable. Though that’s more of a lemmy specific perspective.
Or a Hubzilla, Friendica, or NodeBB perspective, because all of those support discussion groups and forums. And you can participate with them over ActivityPub without using their software or creating an account on their server. I am communicating with your using Hubzilla, not Lemmy right now.
I don’t think it’s a big concern, if a big instance does something stupid people will just move to a different one, and people will also naturally move to instances with communities and moderation policies they prefer over time which will help spread things out
It’s inevitable.
It also serves to give new users a stable instance that they can learn on. Then they’ll either switch instances, stay with the biggest, start their own, or abandon federated social media entirely.
But that initial stability gives the best chances of people staying. I started on the big, obvious ones for lemmy and Mastodon. On lemmy, I abandoned my .world account pretty quick for this one because it offered what I need. It ended up being one of the bigger ones, but I don’t plan on switching. But when someone in my life wants to try lemmy, I tend to recommend one of the less annoying instances lol.
Mastodon, it was similar; .social didn’t fill my needs, so I migrated. Twice so far.
There’s always going to be a “biggest” instance. It’s going to be the one that’s easiest to find. You could plug in the smallest instance for Mastodon, and it would decentralize more. But it might also overwhelm that instance. Mastodon in particular has an organization that can maintain a solid instance with massive numbers. Letting it serve as a gateway just makes sense.
Dumb
I hope people spread out, but I also hope that tools for viewing the fediverse keep being developed so people don’t feel so fragmented and feel pressured to join big instances.
Like say each instance had a similarly named community, and you could browse the community locally and across all other instance communities with the same name. Much like there is a local and all button at the top.
you could browse the community locally and across all other instance communities with the same name.
Lemmy.ml and lemmy.world political communities wouldn’t probably mix well together. There’s a reason different versions of communities exist. If they are two similar, they should consolidate on one community.
If the protocol doesn’t give incentives for an even distribution of users, it’s not going to be solved by blaming individual instances or individual users.
The problem isn’t centralization, but the concept of a “generalist” instance. Instances should be more focused in concept and scope, and usable locally without feeling the need to scroll all.
I kind of disagree. In the sense that people have multiple interests and identities.
If you are a french person who likes anime and technology. Where so you sign up, to the French instance, the anime one, the one focused on technology? You have to make and maintain one account for every interest you have?
I think instances should be bland an irrelevant. Like email addresses. They should say nothing about the users of that instance. Imho, the goal should be that people just sign in in the most convenient instance and should not have to think again in which instance they are.
I mean do smaller instances want to be larger? That means more resources. I mean as long as they are accepting signups presumably but they might not be ready for 1000 in a day. For myself I sorta avoided the largest options and then looked at what the next few options put in their about and faq. Until there is a pretty good migration tool though Im not going to get to attached to my user.
If an instance doesn’t want to grow they turn off new sign-ups, some growth might help instances stay afloat, as not only it might help with more donations, but also signal to the maintainers that there is appreciation for their work.
People do what’s lazy, and when encounterung new tech or modes, generally take common pathways first.
I personally think it’s not a big deal as long as you could easily move your accounts settings from one account to another.
If anything bad happens to the main instance people will just move elsewhere IMO.
For threadiverse (lemmy/mbin et al) there’s not much in it. It’s fairly easy for an operator to curate their instance by pre subscribing to a whole bunch of communities. I run my own instance, barely any users and I’m constantly banning and deleting them for advertising. But I have plenty of content.
I made my own mastodon instance and connected to a bunch of groups. Only two or three are active. There’s not really an easy way to get content without following a lot of people. So anyone visiting my instance will see virtually nothing. If they go to social they will see plenty.
So it’s a bit of a no brainer for most I think.
I think the key to survival and growth of federated platforms is that the onboarding experience for new users be simple and stable. If a new user has to understand what federation is and how it works, then the system is already failing them. Federation needs to be transparent to the fullest extent possible. There’s a lot of value in telling a user “You can sign up on any of these proven-reliable instances, and your choice doesn’t overly matter, because they’re general-purpose and stable, and you’ll still fully interact with users from every other instance either way.” There’s a lot less value in giving them a 30 minute presentation on federation, then overwhelming them with a list of 500 instances to pick from, half of which are hyper-focused on one topic or run by extremists.
At the same time, if they end up being led to an instance that has issues with stability, absent admins, political extremism at the admin-level, or if that instance is topic- or region-specific, or if that instance has defederated from a huge portion of the fediverse, or if that instance just shuts down and stops existing in a few months… Chances are that user’s going to get a bad impression of the platform as a whole, and never come back.
To me it just seems like the instances which don’t offer those issues - the general-purpose instances with long-term support plans, experienced teams, and sane admins - will just naturally end up as big instances, as survival of the fittest. And I don’t see that as an issue at all.
Like, sure, the fediverse is designed around decentralization, but there’s a point where decentralization hurts more than it helps. I don’t think anyone would disagree that if we had maximum decentralization, with every single user self-hosting their own instance, that things would be awful for everyone - and I don’t think anyone would disagree that the opposite, with 100% of users being on one single instance with no alternatives, would also be undesirable. There’s benefit to having consistent user experiences, consistent rules, consistent expectations.
In short, yeah, I think the way forward is having a few flagship general-purpose instances that vacuum up most new users, with a wide plethora of smaller instances that are less general-purpose, or region-specific, or just try out new things with rules and moderation policies.
I do think there should be an extremely simple way (for the end user) to migrate your entire account from one instance to another. Something you could do in just a minute or two.
It is impossible to satisfy both:
- Getting started is simple and easy and low-effort
- The instance won’t be bedeviled with low-effort people in large numbers
You have to pick your poison, I think. Personally I prefer option number 2.
In the specific case of Mastodon, an instance pretty much only receives a post via federation if one of its users either follows the creator of that post, or is mentioned in it.
Discoverability suffers, because this also applies to replies to a post even if you follow its poster. You might see them, or you might not. You look at the post history of one of the users in a thread and it comes up empty.
This is not much of a problem if you’re in one of the, say, top five instances, but beyond that, many functions become increasingly unreliable. Instead of one big microblogging ocean, it feels more like an assortment of a few lakes and myriad puddles with only tenuous interconnection.
Personally, I’ve kinda given up on finding (or creating) my One True Instance and am resorting to having profiles on all of the biggest instances. This also has the advantage that arbitrary defederation decisions affect me to a much lesser extent.
