Mastodawn

uthne Apr 21, 2023

Please reevaluate your decision to incentivise centralisation on mastodon.social in the official app.

This is the sort of design a VC-funded startup would implement, not a non-profit acting in the interests of a healthy commons.

I’m sure you don’t want mastodon.social to become mini-Twitter and you don’t want to become mini-Musk.

That’s not how we win this.

More instances, not larger instances is the key.

https://mastodon.ar.al/@feditips@mstdn.social/110233282943673558

#decentralisation #fediverse #staySmall

Fedi.Tips (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image The official Mastodon app is doing something new which is potentially very dangerous to the existence of Mastodon and the Fediverse. The official Mastodon app now prompts users to join mastodon.social by default, when previously it prompted them to pick a server. If you're new this may sound harmless, but let me explain. The entire point of this place is to be a social network spread out on as many servers as possible (the reasons are here: https://fedi.tips/why-is-the-fediverse-on-so-many-separate-servers/). (1/6)

Mastodon 🐘

Sylvia Wenmackers 🦉🍀Apr 21, 2023

@aral @Gargron Is it too late to change the name from Mastodon to a species of tiny collaborative animals? Dinosaur ants? (Yes, they exist and are still alive.)

Troed Sångberg Apr 21, 2023

@aral @Gargron Actually, when combining this decision with the recent trademark one of not allowing other instances to be named *.mastodon.* there might be a case for questioning Gargron's motives here.

... but I think this is the right move to enable frictionless signups. However, it's now critically important to implement the one-click _complete_ account migration between servers as well.

Basically mastodon.social needs to encourage users to move on from spawn.

federico Apr 21, 2023

@troed
@aral @Gargron
Mastodon is also missing the ability to migrate the post, reply, boost history. Also it cannot migrate accounts from instances that are dead or disabled migration.
This creates user lock-in and therefore centralization.

Benjamin Apr 21, 2023

@federico3 @troed @aral @Gargron Though to be fair here, there are technical limitations. From what I understand, migrating posts/boosts would put a lot of demand on servers especially if you have few folks migrating at once - as those messages end up being rebroadcast again all at once, notifications come through etc - not to mention trying to replace the replies in threads of past conversations. (1/2)

Benjamin Apr 21, 2023

@federico3 @troed @[email protected] @Gargron Dead instances are always going to be a risk, without some kind of duplication and a way of proving you owned the account on the dead instance (possibly a good ol' key pair but would add complexity for new users).

The code is open source - anyone that wants to disable migration will be able to do that, not much we can really do on that front. (2/2)

But I'm not disagreeing with you, migrating post history would be ideal.*

*Possible? https://social.luca.run/@luca/109559157272902502

Luca 🔨 (@[email protected])

I'm playing with the idea of importing my Tweets archive to my #Mastodon instance (not here, on my personal server) but don't want to spam other instances. I found https://github.com/wb14123/twitter2mastodon from two years ago. It uses the API to create the post and then edits creation and update timestamps in the database. I wonder if it would be enough to cut the connection to the internet during import. Is that correct or would backdated posts get federated?

social.luca.run

federico Apr 21, 2023

@BenjaminNelan @troed @aral @Gargron If "live mirroring" was part of the protocol it would be reasonable to require it be enabled on an instance in order to join the federation.

Benjamin Apr 21, 2023

@federico3 @troed @aral @Gargron Though a change like that to the protocol could be seen as a forceful takeover by other fediverse platforms.

So it probably can't be a requirement of federation, maybe of the server covenant and optional for others. Basically an opt in to cache more content than is typically covered and in some cases involves backfill of earlier posts, which is currently still an open issue on the github page.

federico Apr 21, 2023

@BenjaminNelan @troed @aral @Gargron No, it's an implementation issue due to the absence of account syncing or "mirroring". Keeping a full up-to-date copy of an account backed up in the client or synced on a second instance would not create much more load than having two independent accounts. But it needs to be implemented as part of the protocol.

⁂ Fish Id Wardrobe Apr 21, 2023

@troed @aral @Gargron This

Benjamin Apr 21, 2023

@troed @aral @Gargron I agree. Though as nefarious as both those decisions can appear, I think it's clearly about trying to reduce the friction for new users - even for the trademark changes. The biggest complaints during November last year were about picking servers and people ending up on 'mastodon' urls that aren't moderated.

So I can empathize with the intention here.

@BenjaminNelan @troed @aral @Gargron It's exactly what the signup process for Matrix is like where the default server is matrix.org.

Benjamin Apr 21, 2023

@Nour @troed @aral @Gargron To be fair, we have seen Matrix’s main server end up fairly full as a result.

Maybe a more @pixelfed approach would be better? Main server is the first option but other options aren’t behind a secondary action.

@BenjaminNelan @troed @aral @Gargron @pixelfed True, I personally use the Mozilla (chat.mozilla.org) homeserver. I think on Mastodon the biggest UX issue is those not knowing what server to choose when signing up, so presenting a default/fallback option while displaying other good options to at least pique enough interest and make users aware is the best way to go.

@BenjaminNelan @troed @aral @Gargron @pixelfed So instead of being lost on 'here are tens of different servers to choose from before you join' it would instead be 'here is the main server and all you have to do is click join, but there are some good other options here if you'd like'

Gabe Kangas Apr 22, 2023

@aral @Nour Here lies the problem. You think of one server being the “main server”. You have a hierarchy. When there’s a hierarchy it can (will) be abused. Don’t hand over control to anybody. Take it for yourself.

Laurens Hof Apr 23, 2023

@[email protected] @aral @Nour I fully agree with that idea (otherwise I wouldnt be doing what Im doing obviously), but I think the difficult part is about how and when do you explain this to new people.

Like, is the signup flow from an app really the best place to explain this? I think its hard to say that it is, but at the same time, lock-in and complacency will still mean that lots of people end up on m.s.

Personally, I think the best solution would be to get even more competing easy signup flows. Think this problem will get less relevant when things like mozilla.social launches and people can easily end up on their server with a SSO firefox account.

Aral Balkan Apr 23, 2023

@laurenshof @gabek @Nour Interesting, isn’t it, that Mozilla, a for-profit Silicon Valley corporation that now has AI and venture capital arms (one of which is invested in a fediverse app called Mammoth) and makes almost all its money by enabling surveillance capitalist Google to violate the privacy of the people who use its browser in exchange for half a billion dollars every year, is going to be a force for good in a decentralised network.

zigguratmonk Apr 23, 2023

@laurenshof @aral @gabek @Nour
I think it makes a ton of sense from a UX perspective. I looked at plenty of servers when signing up, but honestly ended up on m.s. because it was easy. Would love the next step to be making migration obvious and easy. But until the "default" server lets me down I don't see why I'd try to move?

zigguratmonk Apr 23, 2023

@laurenshof @aral @gabek @Nour
But damn that knowing I can jump somewhere else if things get messy is real nice.

@laurenshof @aral @gabek Agree with this. I think practically instance randomization can be a bit confusing or intimidating. It makes sense that when you download the official app, people see a familiar, 'official' looking mastodon.social recommended. The dispersion mainly happens when each app/client/website offers their own default server, and the server people land on would depend on how they joined or were introduced to the fediverse from.

@laurenshof @aral @gabek Regardless, instance randomization is perhaps something third party clients can offer. But it'd make sense that apps that are affiliated with their own instance offer a default option for the type of experience they're trying to curate. Many companies will have their own app/instance in the future and will offer SSO for their own instances, so dispersion will not be an issue long term IMO.

@laurenshof @aral @gabek Most people will also end up on a cluster of large company-related instances while more advanced users or hobbyists will be dispersed all over smaller instances.

Gabe Kangas Apr 23, 2023

@Nour @laurenshof @aral People only think mastodon.social is "official" because Mastodon says it is. The sign up form on almost all Fediverse instances looks exactly the same. But only one is highlighted by the people who write the biggest piece of Fediverse software, leading to conflict of interest and abuse of power. They're looking to grow Mastodon, the company, and their own instance.

@gabek @laurenshof @aral I mean in the sense that if I signed up to a randomized instance, I'd tell people my handle is \@user@\this-random-url-I-got-assigned.tld which can cause confusion, compared to one that simply resembles 'Mastodon Social'. As the company and non-profit behind the platform, it will always have official stature associated with it. It gives a higher sense of authenticity because people gravitate towards and trust brands.

@gabek @laurenshof @aral For example, if Meta joined the fediverse today, the 'official' Mastodon instance will easily get dwarfed in the amount of users. A lot more companies will join over time too and Mozilla's new instance opening is imminent. Over time, the playing field will level out and people will inevitably disperse due to the sheer amount of large instances and signup options, especially with the ease of migration.

@gabek @laurenshof @aral A long time ago, most of the internet were on AOL before Yahoo/Hotmail etc and now mostly Gmail, but there's a large variety of email providers and addresses present today. I imagine eventually like email it'll also be possible to have a custom domain/alias (already possible with Webfinger, but a bit limited) without launching your instance (equal to hosting your own mail) and just pointing some DNS records.

Gabe Kangas Apr 23, 2023

@Nour @laurenshof @aral If Microsoft Edge hid the address bar behind a button, auto-loaded store.microsoft.biz and called it the “official web site of the internet”, we’d all have problems with it. Having an “official node of the Fediverse” is the same thing. You are giving Mastodon so much control by being ok with this. There is no official on the Fediverse. We’re all equals.

@gabek @laurenshof @aral I definitely see your point. My feeling is just that in the long term things will even out. There will also inevitably be some dominant players like email currently, and I personally wouldn't mind if non-profits were among them. The nice thing about the fediverse is it's built on an open protocol. Apart from instances, there'll be a lot of other large and small platforms while still being able to connect with everyone.

Mr. Teatime May 4, 2023

@Nour
so, do you think it eill even out, or do you think there will be dominant players (i.e. it will be conquered by Google and Microsoft, who will then do their best to squeeze all others out by randomly blocking indeoendent providers)?
@gabek @laurenshof @aral

@Mr_Teatime @gabek @laurenshof @aral I would look at email today. There's a dominant player, Gmail (previously used to be AOL/Yahoo/Hotmail). But there is massive variety in email providers that email as a protocol is not under the control of or dictated by any provider. There will inevitably be a bunch of big fish and whales in the fediverse, but there will also be lots of medium fish and lots of small fish.

Gabe Kangas May 5, 2023

@Nour @Mr_Teatime @laurenshof @aral Do share the massive variety of email providers.

1. Embrace. Use the email standards such as SMTP to talk to other email servers.
2. Extend. Encourage all email users to use your service by making it the default and positioning yourself as "the server" via applications and partnerships, eventually adding features that are limited to your mail interface.
3. Extinguish. Say that all other mail servers that aren't yours are spam and block them.

If you don't see how this could happen on the Fediverse today then I don't know what to tell you.

@gabek @laurenshof @aral @Mr_Teatime There are lots in the privacy space alone, with Proton and Fastmail being the largest, apart from mainstream options and those offered by domain registrars. Hosting email is not something easy though, unlike an ActivityPub instance. Regardless, I don't rule out the possibility and agree with you, but I just personally feel that the fedi has way too many potential big players, since unlike email hosting, any person or company can easily spin up an instance.

Chris May 5, 2023

@Nour @gabek @laurenshof @aral @Mr_Teatime hosting an email server is trivial. Blindingly so, with certain solutions.

About the complexity of self-hosting an activity pub instance.

What's hard about email is getting the big established players to accept email from you. To be accepted as part of the party and not spam.

That part isn't part of SMTP. They make you jump through hoops of their design.

They'll do the same here

@cmw @gabek @laurenshof @aral @Mr_Teatime For sure and I completely agree. This is unfortunately the case when it comes to the whole internet and not just email. As such, this will be inevitable when the Fediverse goes mainstream. As much as I enjoy having our little safe corner of the internet, regardless of the negatives it'd bring, I'd prefer the Fediverse going mainstream and to focus on its positives, as the overall net outcome will be a much healthier and more open web compared to now.

Chris May 5, 2023

@Nour @gabek @laurenshof @aral @Mr_Teatime In as much as moving from a monopoly to an oligopoly can be considered an improvement, I agree.

I'll be putting my hopes for actual change into truly decentralized approaches. #ssb or #SmallWeb

Mr. Teatime May 6, 2023

@cmw
This exactly.

Plus: I can't use any e-mail client except Outlook at work anymore because an Exchange server isn't actually an e-mail server. It sends e-mails to other providers, but not to local users. Bam, lock-in!
@Nour @gabek @laurenshof @aral

Gjalt-Jorn Peters May 5, 2023

@gabek @laurenshof @Nour @aral @Mr_Teatime I guess these things cannot be prevented by any technology in itself, so will always be political choices (i.e. depending on the people in power, their preferences, principles and ideals, stakeholder leverage, etc)?

(this is a sincere question / 'hypothesis', this isn't my field so I don't know much about these dynamics 🙂)

Aral Balkan May 5, 2023

@matherion @gabek @laurenshof @Nour @Mr_Teatime You can prevent it by designing technology that’s truly decentralised; tech that scales horizontally, not vertically. Tech specifically designed so there are no economies of scale.

See, for example, https://small-tech.org/research-and-development/

R&D

Building the Small Web: a public space of individually-owned and controlled places.

Small Technology Foundation

Gjalt-Jorn Peters May 5, 2023

@aral @gabek @laurenshof @Nour @Mr_Teatime So, if I understand properly, technology that's optimized less for 1-to-many and more for 1-to-few? Or is there another core difference that I'm missing?

Gjalt-Jorn Peters May 5, 2023

@aral @gabek @laurenshof @Nour @Mr_Teatime (referring to the infrastructure performance, not communication of content)

Aral Balkan May 5, 2023

@matherion @gabek @laurenshof @Nour @Mr_Teatime Optimised for one-to-one. One-to-many can be modeled on one-to-one. If individuals own the means of communication, they’re in charge. All nodes equal; no privileged nodes. The moment you privilege a node, that node will have incentive to scale.

Mr. Teatime May 6, 2023

@aral
There can never be a waterthight law, or 100% stable political system, or purely technical solution for a socio-economical problen.

but there are of course technical arrangement that make things easier or harder, and encourage/discourage certain behaviour, and anyone making technology and pretending otherwise is not honest. We absolutely need things that are better in this regard: empower people, and prevent domination.

@matherion @gabek @laurenshof @Nour

old_tootbrute May 5, 2023

@Nour @Mr_Teatime @gabek @laurenshof @aral

Email is a good example but not in the way you think it is

Have you ever tried running your own mail server? Many obstacles in the way from big players like Google and Microsoft.

We have to be careful that the fediverse stays open to all, not just big servers.

Benjamin Apr 21, 2023

@Nour @troed @aral @Gargron @pixelfed I did initially think the interests grouping was a good way of doing it - but turns out lots of people don't want to categorise themselves by some singular interest.

Also easy for me to say when I'm on the boring default... but in my defense I've been here awhile.

jack Apr 21, 2023

@BenjaminNelan @Nour @troed @aral @Gargron @pixelfed I signed up today. I had no idea what server to choose so I chose the one with the coolest name.
Making this as seamless as possible for new users by having a default would get the biggest uptake by “non-techies”.

kikebenlloch Apr 21, 2023

@Nour @BenjaminNelan @troed @aral @Gargron @pixelfed I agree.

bignose Apr 23, 2023

@Nour
> I think on Mastodon the biggest UX issue is those not knowing what server to choose when signing up

I disagree. As @gabek alludes to, the solution lies in being clear that there *is* no "central server", to choose one's first instance lightly.

We need it to be normal to flit about lightly for a while, give no special privilege to any particular instance. Normalise the ease of switching to a different instance. Emphasise this huge advantage of #ProtocolsNotPlatforms.

bignose Apr 23, 2023

As for not knowing which instance to choose: Yes, that's a hurdle.

One that is just as easily solved by choosing one *at random* and presenting that to the newcomer as a default to try.

Get everyone talking about how *easy* it is to switch, that you don't need to make your first instance a big decision.

Chris Apr 22, 2023

@BenjaminNelan @Nour @troed @aral @Gargron @pixelfed why even elect (and prefer) a "main" server? Why not rotate the network behind the sign-up button?

I agree reducing friction for signing up is a good thing, but why limit it to one instance. There are plenty options big enough that a new user doesn't immediately feel lost.

You could even select instances by language setting and default display local timeline for new users with no/few followings, so they see activity.

Benjamin Apr 22, 2023

@cmw @Nour @troed @aral @Gargron @pixelfed That's true.

Troed Sångberg Apr 21, 2023

@Nour @BenjaminNelan @aral @Gargron I was thinking the same thing before - but the official Matrix client isn't named "Matrix". Third party clients have more "mindshare" when searching for Matrix clients.

But if we want to make the comparison anyway, yes, it's even more difficult to change to another server in the Element client than on the offical Mastodon client.

@troed @BenjaminNelan @aral @Gargron This is definitely something @matrix have to improve. At least on here, people can easily disperse eventually throughout the rest of the fediverse due to the ease of migration.

Mr. Teatime May 4, 2023

@BenjaminNelan
wouldn't a better (though harder-to-implement...) way be to have some sort of instance suggestion engine?
You give it some keywords and what's important to you and it gives you some instances and picks one at random if you're unsure which one to use.

I spent days choosing an instance, and of course that should be made easier. But we all know how immensely powerful defaults are -- this could go quite wrong.

@troed @aral @Gargron

Benjamin May 5, 2023

@Mr_Teatime @troed @aral @Gargron Definitely. Someone shared this screenshot on GitHub and I think something like it (but with a roulette system to change the second screen so it doesn't start on .social) would be waaay better.

Having said that - I still don't know what a typical user's experience of this would be.

*Link to the github post by mattcoxonline: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon-ios/issues/1023#issuecomment-1517563854

[BUG] App onboarding is directing new users to join mastodon.social by default · Issue #1023 · mastodon/mastodon-ios

Is there an existing issue for this? I have searched the existing issues Current Behavior With the current setup, the app strongly implies users should just join mastodon.social, with a harder-to-r...

GitHub

Tuxicoman Apr 21, 2023

@troed @aral @Gargron

Big companies are going to provide an #activittpub app that enlist users to their service but benefit from fediverse content. Same story as how #gmail ate the email ecosystem. Remember instant messaging added only between gmail accounts back in 2010?

So I prefer masrodon.social to be the "advertised" landing point. I bet it would provide better server migration and compatibility than others

Jeff Apr 21, 2023

@troed @aral @Gargron

I can honestly understand pointing to a nice shiny page like the Join Mastodon server list, but I don't think it's a good idea to point people to a single server.

If specific servers want to point people there that's their choice, but I don't want _my_ server doing so.

ilinamorato Apr 21, 2023

So @Gargron talked a little bit about this in his interview with @nilay_patel . Whether you trust his motives or not, he's got some good reasons and data. https://pca.st/episode/985c6d18-7849-4188-aaac-969b18586dfd

Can Mastodon seize the moment from Twitter? - Decoder with Nilay Patel

CEO Eugen Rochko on running - and growing — a decentralized social network

Pocket Casts

Peter Toft Jølving Apr 23, 2023

@troed
@aral @Gargron

Well, that's awkward. When was this limitation introduced? This past December?

Subhadeep Jasu Apr 21, 2023

@aral @Gargron out scaling is better than up scaling. Putting pressure on a single instance defeats the point of fediverse. I can see this as good for ux but may be there is some other way.

bison ✅Apr 21, 2023

@SbdJazz @aral @Gargron ux is sadly what counts way more than technology or "decentralization" or whatever for the normal user https://mastodon.social/@bison/110236564643376704