A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
Strong disagree about the email thing. When people say that, they aren't talking about low level implementation details like this article goes into. They're talking about the ability for Gmail to talk to AOL.
Non-technical users have no idea about implementation details of email anyway, so I highly doubt anyone has ever interpreted it that way.
As someone who struggled to understand what the fediverse even was, the email analogy was what made it finally click for me.
For me, it was pretty clear that the analogy was only about how different servers could talk to each other, and that the underlying technology wasn't equivalent. I never even considered that people might use the analogy that way until this article.
Ahh! So that is why users are [email protected]. it is basically like public email threads that are structured to promote discussion!
Aw, I thought this was about actual Mastodons.
Meee tooo, hard disappoint. I was thrilled there were a whopping 10 misconceptions about the extinct animal!
One misconception is that mastodons sharpened their tusk points with a nail file while giving their enemy the evil eye. Never happened.
There's a sweet misconception being cleared up, that's the stuff, thank you stranger!
Why would you expect that from a fediverse community post?
I blame the thumbnail, though.
Edit: or maybe I can't take a joke..
Same here, as the picture led us to believe.
I'm glad I'm not the only one disappointed.
We want real mastodon facts, damn it.
I came ready to learn about prehistoric animals, what's going on here.
A staggering amount of honesty that will likely make a bunch of idealistic blowhards really mad. Good job.
Pretty decent list. It covered a lot of the myths I think about.
One myth you mention that I see a lot is the idea that people you don't like won't be on the fediverse. On the face of it it's an absurd idea -- So anyone can start an instance and run it however they want but somehow it's going to be more locked down than big tech sites that spend millions of dollars on moderation?
The myth that "it's all called mastodon" that you mention I feel is less like the gnu/linux distinction, and more like your mom calling every video game system a "nintendo". I'm running 6 different services that use some form of federation, and none of them are Mastodon (nothing against the program, it's just that I've always been running with system performance at a premium so something heavy and scalable like that wasn't on my radar)
A few of these are interesting and accurate (email comparisons), a few are pretty obvious and widely distributed already (privacy challenges), a few are a bit of a straw man argument (not sure "algorithms are bad" is a thing) and a few I'd caveat a little bit (quote tweets).
Going through all that would mean a whole response piece, though, so I'm more than happy to vaguely nod and move on.
I think for most people talking about algorithms, the problem isn't an algorithm, it's "The Algorithm".
The distinction is that everything on a computer screen is displayed using an algorithm, but The Algorithm is instead this sinister thing that arbitrarily displays things for the benefit of the company rather than the benefit of the user.
An Algorithm might show posts by upvotes or by comments or by some combination of the two, or by time, or by some combination of the three. The Algorithm will show stormfront posts to black people because it drives engagement. On Youtube for example, a thumbs down is just as acceptable for the purposes of The Algorithm as a thumbs up.
The distinction is that everything on a computer screen is displayed using an algorithm, but The Algorithm is instead this sinister thing that arbitrarily displays things for the benefit of the company rather than the benefit of the user.
Somewhat relevant kurzgesagt video. The thing would be that as they say there, the most effective algorithm would feed you rage bait. Stuff that it thinks upsets you. The most effective emotion to exploit. Keeps you glued as you get more and more upset with each swipe, being able to show you more and more ads as you do.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Somewhat relevant kurzgesagt video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It's gotten diluted over time with each wave, but algorithms are bad was a strong stance on mastodon servers since its inception. It was one of the first "big" things touted about mastodon. Each wave brought more people from twitter that didn't care about that or actively disagreed with it so you don't see the argument as much
Well, the idea of the original post is that ALL algorithms used for any reason are bad, and the retort is to explain that a chonological feed is still a (simple) algorithm and use that to "well actually" a distinction with proprietary algorithms.
Which is fine, but nitpicky. I'd think most Masto users get that, or at least take no issue with the obvious explanation. For all I saw the majority of the response to BlueSky's idea of an algorithm marketplace where you pick and tune how your feeds are sorted was relatively well received.
But as always around here I don't doubt that with a different set of follows and even usage times the pushback on principle may be more frequent or obvious. It just hasn't been my experience and I think the "what algorithm actually means" bit is a bit deceptive.
Yep. When I tried Mastodon, I gave up again super fast, and I think I see why now. Thankyou, very interesting.
You forgot censorship. The top default instance social is heavily censored.