fosstodon.org is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Fosstodon is an invite only Mastodon instance that is open to those who are interested in technology; particularly free & open source software. If you wish to join, contact us for an invite.

Administered by:

Server stats:

11K
active users

Dear @Gargron,

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.

mastodon.ar.al/@feditips@mstdn

@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.

@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.

@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'

@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.

@gabek@social.gabekangas.com @aral@mastodon.ar.al @Nour@fosstodon.org 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.

Nour Agha :popos:

@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.

@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.
Mastodon hosted on mastodon.socialMastodonThe original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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

@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

@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 🙂)

@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, small-tech.org/research-and-de

Small Technology FoundationR&DBuilding the Small Web: a public space of individually-owned and controlled places.

@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?

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

@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.

@aral I have a really hard time wrapping my head around this for some reason. So, this isn't a model for the entire internet, right? E.g. Wikipedia needs to be accessible by many people simultaneously without becoming annoyingly slow. So this is in the context of social media, and then for dialogues, less for 'broadcasting'? Or am I completely misunderstanding?

@matherion @aral ... precisely that in my view, decentralisation has value in certain contexts but centralisation is not bad in itself

@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

@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.