TL;DR: The current Mastodon-signup is only removing the confusion of users on first glance, because it either hides the server-choice altogether, or leaves them with a choice that is impossible to …

TL;DR: The current Mastodon-signup is only removing the confusion of users on first glance, because it either hides the server-choice altogether, or leaves them with a choice that is impossible to make at this point of their Mastodon-journey. Instead, it should introduce them to decentrality on a lower scale, with a handful of handpicked servers to choose from, such that the decision makes sense to them and shows them the merits and fun of the concept instead of scaring them away. Ideal would be to give them a sense of agency. Then, chances are higher that they consider migrating again in the future and eventually internalize it as a permanent option of the digital world.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      21·
      11 months ago

      The article refers to ActivityPub-based “microblogging” by assuming that Mastodon is the only client application available for that purpose. It is not. Mastodon is certainly the most popular client application for that purpose, but it doesn’t have to be. Other client applications exist, and a better or more popular client application could be created.

      When the point of the article is to get people to comprehend that federated social media is not a “walled garden” –

      People are using open, free Mastodon, but in their minds, they are still in a walled garden.

      maintaining the notion that a single client application is the only way to read or create a certain kind of content is a big part of the very problem the article describes.

      And the author seems to be aware of this:

      Often, I hear about people trying to explain the idea behind Mastodon to someone, who is not on the Fediverse, they often explain it with e-mail. However, nowadays, people don’t even experience this “choice of service” even with e-mail anymore. They get their e-mail when signing up with google and that’s it.

      GMail is not the only way to send and receive SMTP email. It’s certainly a very popular way to do so, but you wouldn’t describe a concern over people being blind to their choices of email providers (or, indeed, their ability to host their own email server) as

      The current [GMail]-signup is only removing the confusion of users on first glance, because it either hides the server-choice altogether, or leaves them with a choice that is impossible to make at this point of their [GMail]-journey.

      If the author, or anyone else, wants people to have a better understanding of the nature of federated social media, describing it wrong is not a path to that goal.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        11 months ago

        What would you prefer people use to refer to “Reddit-like” ActivityPub clients, and what would you prefer for “Twitter-like” ones?

    • wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.netEnglish
      21·
      11 months ago

      I’m not them but -

      Forum style posts =\= reddit.

      Short text style posts =\= twitter.

      Just because lemmy is a forum style alternative to Reddit does not mean we should call it a reddit-like.

      Just because mastodon is a short text style post alternative to Twitter does not mean we should call it a twitter-like.

      It would be like saying reddit is a gameFAQs-like, but for more than just games. Is it inaccurate? Not exactly, but they are their own things. Related/inspired from each other, but so is basically everything that exists from art to practicality.

      I think in this case, yes Lemmy was made as an alternative to the forum-image style posting that Reddit is now known for. However, lemmy and mastodon are far beyond that now too due to how it interfaces with ActivityPub (each instance being able to have its own community of the same name). It’s created enough separation that it almost seems inaccurate now to entirely call these a “-like” alternative.