People are always comparing the fediverse with email. Remember webmail in the 90s? We had Hotmail, Mailcity, Rocketmail, and a bunch of others. Now we have Gmail by default.
I wonder if Masto or any other part of the fediverse goes mainstream, would one instance would eat up all the others? People seem to always congegrate back into centralisation. Internet herd behaviour..
@JordiGH Today we have reverted back to the days of timesharing systems and isolated proprietary services that make decentralisation appealing, and we finally have technology to make barriers to participation low:
* cheap processing and storage * affordable persistent broadband * commodity virtualisation technology and services
and since no single service could ever take down the silos (even as broken as they are) highly federated successors seem to be the most likely outcome.
@msh @jordigh gab and minds and what-have-you are just trying to be Another Twitter (even though Minds is free software), but Mastodon adds real value because it puts an accessible face on the Fediverse instead of trying to be another silo.
I'm really glad to see there are hundreds of instances, showing that even if non-siloed networking may be confusing to newcomers, and even though the Mastodon name as used in the official messaging confuses the software, the network, and the flagship instance, the community gets it.
But e-mail absolutely provides a warning about the dangers of federation. You mention hotmail and rocketmail, but that was already the first wave of centralization. In the early 90s we got our mail accounts from our ISPs.
The wave happened because of webmail. It was so convenient to use, even though a real IMAP desktop client had better functionality. I am an old grumpy man, but I mainly use webmail, and the one from Big No Evil at that.
I think what needs to happen to stop centralization from coming back in waves is for P2P to be the real layer and the web interface to be a convenience layer on top of that. The true p2p layer needs to have tangible benefits that pull people away from the convenient layer, to offer a centrifugal force opposite to the centripetal force of centralization[0].
[0] And if you think a centrifugal force isn't a thing I refer you to #xkcd123. And if you think "but in reality it's just inertia", I say that if inertia is was keeps people on p2p as opposed to going to a web instance, inertia is as good a friend as any.
@clacke@JordiGH@msh i don't think a step-wise approach is necessary. maybe in terms of developing the technology, but for adoption it just has to be interesting/fun and easy to install/use. i don't think there is really a difference between:
> get snapshat
and
> get tootdon
and
> get mmmmm
the underlying tech is important (to some people), but mass adoption has nothing to do with tech and everything to do with features.
@msh@JordiGH@clacke if we want to win, we have to be *better* and *more interesting* than the (better funded) competition. we have freedom and privacy going for us, but that's not the only aspect that people look at.
I got on identi.ca because it was easy to join (because Web), and Twitter had shut down their XMPP interface (so also because Not Web!).
I got on SSB because I was physically present with people who used it, and because git-ssb.
I got on WhatsApp because non-geek friends used it, and I have no idea, not a single clue, how WhatsApp got there without a web frontend. And no desktop client either!
So maybe MMMMM should have been developed before Patchwork, and *magic happens here*.
I know I wasn't interested in i.e. Twister because no web. You can't link to to things, you can't preview the community, there is no serendipity.
But I don't have a point, because WhatsApp blew my point apart. Was that a billion dollars in advertising or what was it?