It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago).
-
It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago). But one of the things I've heard puts newbies off alternative social apps/ networks is too much meta-discussion about development and deployment of the apps/ networks themselves.
Maybe we could agree on a standard way of tagging this stuff (eg #FediDev)? Then the DevMeta tag could be filtered out by default for newbies.
(1/3)
-
It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago). But one of the things I've heard puts newbies off alternative social apps/ networks is too much meta-discussion about development and deployment of the apps/ networks themselves.
Maybe we could agree on a standard way of tagging this stuff (eg #FediDev)? Then the DevMeta tag could be filtered out by default for newbies.
(1/3)
That way, we can use the fediverse to coordinate fediverse development, even more than we already do;
But without as much risk of bombing newbies with posts that probably only interest the subset of people keen to discuss the nuts and bolts of fediverse development. Software devs, admins, mods, protocol geeks, reference guide maintainers, etc.
Also, we're less likely to get low effort or out of context noise injected into such discussions if they're opt-in.
(2/3)
-
That way, we can use the fediverse to coordinate fediverse development, even more than we already do;
But without as much risk of bombing newbies with posts that probably only interest the subset of people keen to discuss the nuts and bolts of fediverse development. Software devs, admins, mods, protocol geeks, reference guide maintainers, etc.
Also, we're less likely to get low effort or out of context noise injected into such discussions if they're opt-in.
(2/3)
We could instead try to agree on a separate place for all discussions about fediverse coordination (would it rub anyone up the wrong way if I described this as fediverse governance?). But it does makes sense to discuss a federated network *in a federated network*, rather than a separate, centralised forum. Once it's possible to do so, why not use the one under discussion, rather than a different one?
(3/3)
-
We could instead try to agree on a separate place for all discussions about fediverse coordination (would it rub anyone up the wrong way if I described this as fediverse governance?). But it does makes sense to discuss a federated network *in a federated network*, rather than a separate, centralised forum. Once it's possible to do so, why not use the one under discussion, rather than a different one?
(3/3)
> @strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz said:
>
> We could instead try to agree on a separate place for all discussions about fediverse coordination (would it rub anyone up the wrong way if I described this as fediverse governance?). But it does makes sense to discuss a federated network in a federated network, rather than a separate, centralised forum.I keep harping on this one point because it just makes so much sense that it'd be silly not to. The new blood (new software devs implementing AP) always appear on fedi, not some third-party site, first.
To your main point, fedi on Mastodon is all just everybody talking in the same room. Certainly that's why it seems like there's so much meta-discussion about AP.
This isn't the case on the threadiverse, where discussions are segregated/categorized by community.
-
It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago). But one of the things I've heard puts newbies off alternative social apps/ networks is too much meta-discussion about development and deployment of the apps/ networks themselves.
Maybe we could agree on a standard way of tagging this stuff (eg #FediDev)? Then the DevMeta tag could be filtered out by default for newbies.
(1/3)
-
> @strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz said:
>
> We could instead try to agree on a separate place for all discussions about fediverse coordination (would it rub anyone up the wrong way if I described this as fediverse governance?). But it does makes sense to discuss a federated network in a federated network, rather than a separate, centralised forum.I keep harping on this one point because it just makes so much sense that it'd be silly not to. The new blood (new software devs implementing AP) always appear on fedi, not some third-party site, first.
To your main point, fedi on Mastodon is all just everybody talking in the same room. Certainly that's why it seems like there's so much meta-discussion about AP.
This isn't the case on the threadiverse, where discussions are segregated/categorized by community.
At the risk of splitting hairs ...
@julian
> Mastodon is all just everybody talking in the same room ... This isn't the case on the threadiverse, where discussions are segregated/categorized by communityForum apps offer one set of tools for navigating to the conversations we want to take part in. Microposting apps offer a different set. But the underlying data layer reality is one big room. Whatever is posted in the threadiverse is also a drop in the microposting ocean.
-
At the risk of splitting hairs ...
@julian
> Mastodon is all just everybody talking in the same room ... This isn't the case on the threadiverse, where discussions are segregated/categorized by communityForum apps offer one set of tools for navigating to the conversations we want to take part in. Microposting apps offer a different set. But the underlying data layer reality is one big room. Whatever is posted in the threadiverse is also a drop in the microposting ocean.
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz is that true, though? Mastodon doesn't segregate topics by interest group or community because that's a UX decision by Mastodon. It's a wilful ignorance of explicit categorization by design.
Now, I want to be very explicit here that I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Mastodon doesn't have any major incentive to implement groups, much less implement them like the threadiverse does.
But it is by design that it's all lumped together into a singular feed.
-
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz is that true, though? Mastodon doesn't segregate topics by interest group or community because that's a UX decision by Mastodon. It's a wilful ignorance of explicit categorization by design.
Now, I want to be very explicit here that I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Mastodon doesn't have any major incentive to implement groups, much less implement them like the threadiverse does.
But it is by design that it's all lumped together into a singular feed.
(1/2)
Me:
> the underlying data layer reality is one big room.@julian
> is that true, though?Yes. The threadiverse UX tools that ...
> segregate topics by interest group or community
... sit on top of an ocean of AP Activity droplets, which have none of this structure inherently.
This is a feature of the AP design, not a bug. It allows different apps to group and visualise Activities in different ways (micropost threads, blog+comments, threadiverse communities).
-
? Guest crossposted this topic to General Discussion
-
(1/2)
Me:
> the underlying data layer reality is one big room.@julian
> is that true, though?Yes. The threadiverse UX tools that ...
> segregate topics by interest group or community
... sit on top of an ocean of AP Activity droplets, which have none of this structure inherently.
This is a feature of the AP design, not a bug. It allows different apps to group and visualise Activities in different ways (micropost threads, blog+comments, threadiverse communities).
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz I disagree, I view the content not as a function of its lowest common denominator (the singular note adrift in a sea of other notes), but as a part of a larger entity, the thread, or a category/community.
That microblogs are incapable of realizing that is a design decision on their part
-
(1/2)
Me:
> the underlying data layer reality is one big room.@julian
> is that true, though?Yes. The threadiverse UX tools that ...
> segregate topics by interest group or community
... sit on top of an ocean of AP Activity droplets, which have none of this structure inherently.
This is a feature of the AP design, not a bug. It allows different apps to group and visualise Activities in different ways (micropost threads, blog+comments, threadiverse communities).
(2/2)
@julian
> it is by design that it's all lumped together into a singular feedBy default a Mastodon account offers 3 feeds (accounts I follow, Local, Federated). Then there are searches on hashtags, accounts, URLs or as of more recently keywords. Then there are Lists.
As I said, this is ...
> one set of tools for navigating to the conversations we want to take part in
Threadiverse apps offer different ones. They are both useful, to different people, or for different purposes.
-
@julian FYI when you see a (1/?) at the top of my posts, it means the thoughts I'm trying to communicate require more than 500 characters to express. It's worth waiting for the full thread before replying, because otherwise, as in this case, the response to your points is made in later posts : )
-
T tag-activitypub@relay.fedi.buzz shared this topic
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login