Ethan J. A. Schoonover0
MASTODON’S BREAKFAST CLUB PROBLEM in 10 posts. A Thread.
Here we go:
Mastodon’s UI has issues but it is not the real (or only) risk to adoption right now. It is, instead, what I’m calling the BREAKFAST CLUB problem.
1
Twitter users are look for a lifeboat. They go to sign up with mastodon but the federated model is confusing and the main/original servers are full.
2
Mastodon's onboarding process literally tells users to pick a server "based on their interests". This is like being asked to pick the lunch table you will sit at for the rest of your life.
3
How do you choose a single table to sit at when we’re all the nerd, the jock, the princess, the basket case, and the criminal?
(don't @ me with "you can change servers" I know. The problem is that this is still the first thing you are being asked to do.)
4
Many servers are run by fairly centrist position admins. Some are little hobby farms with high restrictive policies. Both are, in theory, totally fine and compatible with the fediverse.
5
I highly recommend this recent @lawfare podcast where @qjurecic, @arozenshtein, and @klonick dig into the nitty gritty of decentralized social media, mastodon, and how this edge-case server situation could work just fine over time.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-decentralized-social-media-and-great-twitter-exodus
The Lawfare Podcast: Decentralized Social Media and the Great Twitter Exodus
It’s Election Day in the United States—so while you wait for the results to come in, why not listen to a podcast about the other biggest story obsessing the political commentariat right now? We’re talking, of course, about Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the billionaire’s dramatic and erratic changes to the platform. In response to Musk’s takeover, a great number of Twitter users have made the leap to Mastodon, a decentralized platform that offers a very different vision of what social media could look like. What exactly is decentralized social media, and how does it work?
6
But users don’t know this or understand "federated." They are just being told to pick a server. So someone who does a lot of art is like “fine, I’ll reduce my personality to “artist” and choose… mastodon dot art”. Sounds reasonable, right?
Then they hit the rules…
7
In this case a user got banned for posting… Goya’s La maja desnuda… on an art server.
Now, to be fair, the rules for that server are clear! But the problem is that the reasonble expectation is that posting goya on a server branded as “the mastodon art server” should be ok.
8
So the problem is you have these highly restrictive servers that are little fiefdoms.
Some people will be happy in them!
Many will not be!
(pictured: guy who would be very excited to run a little fiefdom less as a service and more as a power trip)
9
Again, this is all by design in the fediverse and in time this all works out.
The problem is that during this period of onboarding new users this will simply drive people away. It’s very high cognitive load for people looking to migrate from Twitter.
10
The solution?
* Mastodon needs to set up a formal governance model like Wikipedia
* Mastodon needs to change the onboarding process to promote generic instances and not subject specific petty fiefdoms (or at least subject specific servers that are relatively broad in their speech policies)
FIN
This thread was prompted by a post from https://twitter.com/TeanWitch who does the most badass art you will find. You’ve seen her art all over the place including D&D, RPG publications, Magic the Gathering cards, etc. Go show her some support and buy her art. https://linktr.ee/Justinejones
I feel the need to add a note here.
When I say governance body, I’m *NOT* suggesting anything related to governing or controlling individual instances. I am pro-anarchy here.
I am suggesting that body be formed to cherry pick neutral, middle-of-the-road servers to funnel new users into and to design the (very important! critical even!) onboarding flow that currently risks sending users to servers that will not make them (or the server) happy.
This is *purely* about joinmastodon.com onboarding
paprikapink@ethanschoonover I'm reading this thread as
- here's a problem important enough that we should fix it
- finding a solution will be challenging
- let's work on this challenge
and a lot of the replies as
- the technology that we have now is the pinnacle of what we can do, no point in exploring this, it's impossible
- [ergo] the problem doesn't exist/is not worth addressing
which reminds me of why I can't roll out a pie crust. when I first attempted it, I struggled, and flailed, and had a temper tantrum, and declared the whole thing an impossible waste of time
Yes.
As someone who ran desktop linux for a decade, i see a lot of the same problems with Mastodon's positioning.
Early adopter users of Mastodon focus on the "it's open source federated and here is why the tech is the right way to do things" instead of "here's the massive social, user, and onboarding experience challenge we face if we want this to be successful".
OblomovSorry but that's a horrible take.
1. Nobody was banned for posting Goya. They were banned for being deliberately antagonistic (i.e. for trolling), which is something that I would surely hope any good mod will do (see attached screenshot, taken from <https://twitter.com/Admiral_Craymen/status/1591114512274718720>)
2. a formal network-wide governance model goes against _everything_ the #Fediverse stands for. The whole point of the #Fediverse is to let users get control _back_ from centralized control.
The whole point of the #Fediverse is that each instance has its own governance model, and users are free to go to the one that best fits their needs and views, or set up their own instance if nothing else is to their satisfaction.
The worst possible approach to the #Fediverse is to think of it as a single entity. It's not, and it's designed to NOT be one. When joining the Fediverse, you and nobody else is, or should be, responsible for your choices.
CarolineTheGeek@ethanschoonover The thing is, that by design, there is no centralized governance (for good and bad), so while there are server covenants and such, there's not really a way to vet and handle processes like that. On the one hand, volunteers are making guides and such... on the other hand... it's all run by volunteers.
It's kind of a twitter/discord open source mashup situation, and people used to walled gardens and low-friction/load things are definitely finding it jarring.
@ethanschoonover The values inherent to the design of the mastodon federated system are in conflict with how the birdsite was designed, very purposefully, so while I do think there are major issues to be resolved... the idea of promoting specific instances (which are run by volunteers/hobbyists for the most part) needs to be vetted by... somebody? More volunteers?
@CarolineTheGeek It's why I think they have to look at wikipedia governance as a model. There are ways to do this, but it's a hard problem and now would be the time to tackle it. That lawfare podcast in the thread has a good discussion of some of the issues as well.
@ethanschoonover Yeah, I definitely agree it needs to be tackled, but it's very complicated. Super interesting to think about in terms of the intersections of social media values and cultures on different platforms.
@CarolineTheGeek The lawfare podcast ep I mention does a good job exploring some of those complexities.
I'm all for the weird edge case servers. As it is the fediverse can cope.
My point is just that they shouldn't be the first port of call for newbies who shouldn't need to categorize themselves and sort themselves into a potentially unfun server environment because the mastodon onboarding funneled them there.
Rob C@ethanschoonover I don’t think a “centralized governance kodel” is going to work on a distributed, decentralized, international federation. That is some United Federation of Planets level of enlightenment.
On oarding can definitely be improved though, if we had a list of good, geo local* servers to choose from.
* I think “local” makes a lot of sense. Keeps the timeline close to the user. Takes the Special Interest out of it. Fewer hops to the server…
@ethanschoonover good thread. I like the Breakfast Club analogy. 
@ethanschoonover (“model”) damnit
@robcee Yeah I'm all for the federated server model with local policies. I think the bigger issue is that we're going to lose out on capitalizing on the influx of users now unless mastodon onboarding does a better job at routing them.
@ethanschoonover I have the same concern. Mastodon and the Fed have a fair bit of geekiness baked in that is probably going to deter the less technical.
a guided introduction would help a lot.
zachuorice@robcee @ethanschoonover totally agree! One of the first things I looked for when browsing servers was one for my region. Sadly there is nothing out there for VA it looks like. But I would agree it could ease people in.
Trevor Bramble@ethanschoonover Taking a page from F/OSS licensing might be an easy win. Standardized moderation terms, so you know when you're getting into when you sign up on a server and it's adopted the standard "Mastadon Moderation Pact 1.0" what to expect. Would require centralized listing/delisting or something to address rogue servers not abiding by the pact despite assertions.
@trevorbramble yeah, maybe something like that would be a path forward. and I want to emphasize, I'm all for these weird edge case servers. but they just can't be tossed onto the same sales pile as every other server for initial onboarding. it will end with users doing a u-turn and bailing instead of finding their people (which is what we can enable long term if we do this right)
DougN 
😷 
@ethanschoonover I hear your concerns. I’m not at all convinced that having a central governance model is necessarily the best way to go. I think that the mods involved in the case you raised could have tried to do some education with the particular user. If you try to help the user understand the problem rather than just going immediately for the eject button, you might end up with a better user.
@ethanschoonover Centralized, common governance models are great from an administrative perspective, but don’t help people understand why their behaviour was unacceptable.
@RandomCanuck I'm not proposing central governance for instances, rules, users, or anything like that. What I think a governing body should be doing here is limited to the onboarding process of joinmastodon.com and where users are funneled. Right now it's hit or miss if users end up on a server where they understand how different it might be from what they were expecting.
The goal would be giving users a chance to get educated by transitioning to a generic instance.
mxk⛰️@ethanschoonover the point is, that this only works in union. Everyone who is setting up an instance by them selfs, always will enact their own policies and most likely want to create their own bubble.
And yes, mastodon.social has reached a point, where it should be a federated round robin system it's self.
But in the end, if something is run by volunteers, it always will be done the way the volunteers want.
And yes, mastodon.social has reached a point, where it should be a federated round robin system it's self.
But in the end, if something is run by volunteers, it always will be done the way the volunteers want.
@mxk my concern isn't with the instances, it's with the joinmastodon.com onboarding process. for better or worse (mostly better) that's the public face. And that onboarding process is mirrored in the "main" app on mobile. A better user -> general "mainstream" server funnel there solves a lot.
@ethanschoonover aaah, my bad, I hadn't even realized that this exists.
@mxk no worries, I think I could clarify more because a lot of people interpreted this way.
Scornflakegrrrl@ethanschoonover that’s disingenuous. This content isn’t banned from being posted, people are just asked to put a content wrapper onto it, so that people can choose to look at it but don’t have to if they don’t want to. It’s simple politeness and really not difficult to adopt
@Scornflakegrrrl read the whole thread, not my point at all
@Scornflakegrrrl I take your point, and i'm totally onboard with fediverse instances like this having their own rules, content policies, etc.
The problem is that a big influx of generic Twitter users really should never be presented with a server like this as an option when onboarding. it's going to end up with users leaving because they think this is what mastodon is.
@ethanschoonover in general especially cw policies are common across many servers including large ones,which makes federation work in the first place. It took me a while to get my head around this place ( but so it was when I joined Twitter a decade ago). And with any other online (or meat) space, hanging out a bit and observing is a good idea.
@Scornflakegrrrl I'm pro per-server content policies, etc. Actually am fully supportive of this (and I recognize that the user did this against policy). The podcast ep I link to also supports this.
The problem as I see it is more that it's like introducing someone to a cat cafe when they just want to try their first cup of coffee. Maybe they like it or maybe they are allergic. Better to introduce them to someplace mainstream first, then go from there (or have better assist UI on selection).
@ethanschoonover I have read the whole thread, plus the moan on Twitter from the artist you referenced. What it boils down to is that Mastodon isn’t Twitter, there are slightly different norms, which do not even mean that stuff can’t be posted at all, nor are they a particular high barrier
Jon (now at neuromatch.social)@ethanschoonover This is irresponsible. The screenshot you're showing very clearly shows @Curator's explanation for banning the user -- and it's not because they posted the picture.
And, the "reasonable expectation" here is that people should follow their site's community guidelines. That's generally true on other well-moderated social media sites as well. OK, it's not true on Twitter, so it's a learning experience for many, but it's a good thing to learn.
I'm supportive of various servers having their own rules.
My point stands that a generic influx of Twitter users should never be presented with this as an option for onboarding, or it should be in a separate category entirely
This is going to end up with users leaving Mastodon having bad experiences.
Elizabeth Wrigley-Field@ethanschoonover @lawfare @qjurecic @arozenshtein @klonick
What I'd really like to be able to do is have one account on multiple instances; toggle easily between feeds that are specific to each or combine each; and easily choose with a drop-down menu which one I'm, er, 'tooting'
I would genuinely love to be able to easily browse the instance for my city, and easily be found there, and likewise for my profession. Why must I choose?
Alan Rozenshtein@arozenshtein @wrigleyfield @lawfare @qjurecic @klonick
Elizabeth I too agree. It's interesting to me how social media / chat services continue to circle around this issue. Twitter was "one server, one account," Discord is "One account, Multiple Servers," Slack is "Multiple accounts, Multiple Servers", etc.
I like your proposal. One account, different instances. Would be the best of old G+ circles, Twitter, etc. combined.
Immunothoughts@wrigleyfield @ethanschoonover @lawfare @qjurecic @arozenshtein @klonick
The Tusky app makes it pretty smooth to switch between accounts. Definitely my preferred method to access Masto
The Tusky app makes it pretty smooth to switch between accounts. Definitely my preferred method to access Masto
Agnes of the Dogs@ethanschoonover @lawfare @qjurecic @arozenshtein @klonick Ah, Lawfare is great. Thanks for the nudge to revisit.
@ethanschoonover yeah, but is it? I mean, you can always change tables. Hang with the people you like!
@RandomCanuck I know, the issue is that newbies onboarding are going to end up picking a table that they don't like and they won't change, they'll just bail.
I love that we have a bunch of weird edge case servers, but we need a more limited, filtered set of transitional onboarding servers for Mastodon.
Cusick@ethanschoonover This assumes the goal is to retain as many new users as possible, at this time in the #fediverse's maturity.
A major motivation behind the #TwitterMigration is concern about security. People see a plane going down. They didn't want to be on it when it crashed.
If an attractive pilot welcomes passengers onto their new standby flight by saying, "This is a historic aircraft, today we're flying directly into a storm, please expect turbulence," not everyone is going to want to board that plane.
Can Mastodon instances maintain their ethics and moderation policies during periods of explosive growth? Can mods articulate how they protect stadiums full of new users from targeted harassment? That's a more turbulent experience right now than signup confusion.
The speed of the growth itself is what's exposing current weaknesses. Is speeding up adoption as urgent as giving the (largely volunteer) workforce time to catch their breath? Right-sizing each instance's safety and security measures is harder to do when floodgates are overwhelmed than it is during times of stability, or even attrition.
It's also possible to recover from a bad first impression. Time passing before the second impression is part of how.
@cusick These are all great points. I think my concern right now is that we have a window of opportunity to see a federated open system become the standard, dominant social media service. I'd like to optimize for that outcome rather than cede control of the global conversation to another billionaire.
@cusick And I want all these weird instances with weird rules. I just want to see joinmastodon.com onboarding become more intentional about landing new users in neutral, generic instances (and this will mean editorializing the initial user experience, I think, hence the idea behind a wikipedia style governance committee rather than leaving it to one person).
@ethanschoonover Fully agree about redirecting folks away from for-profit social altogether.
So much has already happened "overnight" this month. It sounds like even if neutral, generic instances did absorb all the new participants first, those instances would still need more moderation support to meet the moment.
I have faith that pumping the brakes isn't going to bring the moment to a halt. The window of opportunity for federated systems might not even "close" anymore. For-profit executives broke the window. I think this time is different.
That might be hubris! My optimism might be too idealistic.
Either way, generic servers will need to master Big Instance Moderation — especially if admins are volunteers, or suddenly navigating fundraising for the first time.
If that can't happen fast enough, joinmastodon.com should be broadcasting the benefits of distribution across responsibly-sized, manageable — and yes, generic! — instances. Any server's ability to remain "consistently committed to moderation against racism, sexism, and transphobia" is going to be compromised by unsustainable growth in instances that lack the capacity to manage report volume.
I really appreciate this conversation — especially the idea of what governance changes editorializing the initial user experience would require. I'm grateful you're sharing these higher-level perspectives.