@julian not to buy into the "grassroots vs mainstream" narrative per se, but the emphasis on mainstream adoption at this stage is imo misplaced and only serves to reinforce broken patterns of "social media" and its consequences over the past 15-20 years. asking people to make the leap right now is going to leave a lot of people disappointed. we need to offer more compelling reasons to be here, and a genuinely better experience for multimodal communications that aren't shoved into the square hole

@reiver@mastodon.social no, I am not, I have just been following the fediversehouse hashtag

@trwnh@mastodon.social I don't think the discussion is about user adoption, though. I don't think that there's any question that the fediverse still isn't ready for "normie" use. The fediverse still doesn't know what it is. It's an emergent space, and we have no idea what this looks like in practice when there's enough people or alternative platforms to stop playing a combination of "rugged individualist on my one-man self-hosted ultra-linux fruit-pie that I built into my own self-pleasure device" and "uncanny make-believe centralized social media".

I think the core complaint that Julian is responding to is one of developers trying to make products that someone might actually want to use, and that aren't weird and masturbatory personal art projects.

The fediverse is full of arthouse auteur programmers.

@kichae no, it's more cultural re: what gets built and how. SXSW has a certain "vibe" that is markedly different than what most people would be going for just 3 years ago. the core of hamish's concern is that "noise vs signal" "echo chamber" approaches where the fediverse must be mainstreamed are... shall we say, not universally appreciated?

it's been said before "protocols not platforms" but the gist of what the opposition amounts to is "people not protocols".

@kichae to better illustrate the noise vs signal approach, and to expand on what i said earlier: imagine that, for several years, a vibrant community has built itself in the margins of what these softwares and protocols allow. they came here to get away from the mainstream offerings. and then, almost literally overnight, they are outnumbered by people who came from those mainstream offerings. what was once vibrant is now drowned out or trampled upon, as even the software itself shifts underneath

@julian The problem with mainstreaming is that everyone wants a piece of cake. Some people come to build, and I think that's fine, even if they take away something from existing projects. But there are also charlatans and scammers, and unfortunately faking achievements is very easy in Fediverse.

The good thing about grassroots / DIY spaces is that the latter category is non existent.

@trwnh@mastodon.social Yes, I'm familiar with the gripes of the fediverse old guard, and all I can say to them is "maybe you shouldn't use an open protocol if you don't want it to be open".

Or maybe they should embrace the inevitable network split, which seemingly everyone in the space cannot stop wringing their hands over.

You don't get to make a private club in the middle of the public park, and crying that all of these people keep showing up every morning to walk their dog is absurd.

@kichae so we find ourself in a situation where diversity and community are lost, buried underneath new communities that scarcely resemble what used to be.

"you do not fit in here" https://webcomicname.com/post/185588404109

that's really what this feels like sometimes -- some of us quit twitter in 2016 or 2017, way before elon musk. some of us can't ever go back. our fundamental concerns are not simply "egotistical billionaire ruins fun". it's way more than "no ads" or "chronological timeline", nice as those are

@kichae i don't know how you define "open" but it seems to be missing the point. the point is that people are walking into homes as if they were public parks. i am talking at the level of *people*, not at the level of protocols or platforms. these aren't just "gripes", they're existential questions for these communities. and as those communities are eroded away, as people *leave*, something is lost. those people may reorganize and regroup elsewhere, but needs are no longer considered by devs...

@kichae things like the anti-viral nature of mastodon, which was seen as a major reason for people to use mastodon in the first place, are being rolled back or compromised on by people who have no such qualms with virality. as a consequence, mastodon is going the way of twitter in 2012.

but people are stuck using mastodon because they cannot migrate easily or cleanly. the mastodon protocol is too fragile to allow much more than asking your followers to refollow you elsewhere. your posts gone.

@kichae ultimately, it's a simple matter of constituencies. is the protocol going to evolve toward networks of trust, consent, etc... or is it more about reach, publicity, audience? who gets a seat at the table -- the people, or the corporations? well, the corporations are certainly getting their seats at the table, it looks like... and suddenly, there's no room left for anyone else to sit down.

@kichae this all comes to a head when you have talks at SXSW of all places.

@julian @deadsuperhero @evan

yep, it's a bit more than that, you can find out why http;//hamishcampbell.com

The top post is apt "This is a #fluffy attempt at communicating to the #mainstreaming. In reality, this post is about #activertpub and the #Fediverse. I’ve already written extensively on this, but I don’t think those pieces break through to the #mainstreaming. So, I used other examples to illustrate the issue."

@trwnh@mastodon.social @kichae@community.nodebb.org So, I have some differing opinions on this...

1. There is a subset of the community that is sometimes very vocal towards any change or shift to the structure, form, conventions, and population of the network. It can be overtly hostile to the point that it opposes any kind of growth, evolution, change, or means for people building in this space to meaningfully support themselves through their work. This mindset reeks of elitist gatekeeping hidden under a thin veneer of fake praxis.

2. Given the nature of this network, the idea that it has to be one thing to anyone is kind of nonsensical. People have preconceived notions of what this network is, what it can be, and who can use it. The idea that a community is being trampled just because a bunch of new people came in with different ways of being kind of doesn't make sense to me. Can't communities just decide to cut off the onslaught of n00bs, if their differences are so offensive?

3. The ecosystem around this network is practically anemic when it comes to financial support. I think we confuse this idea of making money and marketplaces with capital-C Capitalism. It's okay to have goods and services and subscriptions and monetization! It doesn't have to be a total soul-sucking VC monstrosity.

4. The network can in fact contain multitudes, even when operators or communities might seem contradictory or exclusive to one another. It does not have to unilaterally connect everybody to everything. Similarly, it doesn't have to unilaterally align to block things like corporations. There's space for the super-grassroots things, and commercial things.

5. Negativity towards something going mainstream is weird to me. Some of us actually want this network to grow to the point that people can be liberated from all the other shitty networks out there. Some of the steps to doing that includes embracing different kinds of businesses, fixing long-term usability and design issues, and figuring out what appeals to a broader group of people.

@trwnh What you say is true, though it's not the subject I am focusing on.

@kichae it's fab you are doing an #AP forum, It's very much needed. We urgently need wider uses that are native #openweb, so forum is a TICK

What I do talk about, political tech I cover extensively https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=ActivityPub+

@deadsuperhero @kichae sure, i broadly agree re: multitudes, though i think the solution is “more explicit contexts” rather than attempting to put everyone and everything in the same space.

put another way, the desire is not “mainstreaming”, it’s the other things — sustainability, communication, and so on. everything else is a means to those ends.

@deadsuperhero @kichae so in the same vein, the negativity is against the erosion or destruction of the future where those ends are achieved. what is desired is a paradigm shift away from “view everything from one website” and a return to that multitude of diverse communities.

i was telling julian the other day that going to other websites isn’t the problem. the problem is that you can’t interact on other websites. imagine if you could!

@trwnh@mastodon.social @kichae@community.nodebb.org That is 100% fair, and I think we are in agreement.

We don't want to emulate the Capitalist mode of "growth at all costs", that would be objectively awful. The question is, and I'm not sure there's a complete answer yet, is "can we grow sustainably, in a healthy way, in service of these goals?"

In our current setting, I'm not sure. So much of this network is predicated on free and unpaid labor. Even the most successful projects make comparatively little to our competition.

Hi @trwnh @deadsuperhero @kichae,
question being how juicy and safe this interaction should be and how gracefully it degrades if not.

@trwnh@mastodon.social @kichae@community.nodebb.org Yeah, I can get on board with that. I think the mastocentric context (and the "do everything from one form / vantage point" thing) have ultimately set us back in a variety of ways, and we should explore ways to fix this.