A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of “federation” and “universe”.
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
- 0 users online
- 1 user / day
- 15 users / week
- 80 users / month
- 352 users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 999 Posts
- 13.4K Comments
- Modlog
- mods:
My question:
Do people here want the fediverse to become as successful as mainstream social media?
Personally I don’t. If I wanted to be on Twitter/reddit/insta/fb/etc/etc/etc/ad nauseam, I would be.
Success for me is for the people who are here, want to be here and engage with the community.
The last thing I want this site to become is a karma farming wasteland of repost bots and low effort trolling. I could get plenty of that on Reddit.
I have already seen a few examples:
There was someone using multiple accounts a few weeks ago and mass up voting everything on their main account.
People upvoting and boosting every post or comment they make.
I definitely do not wish to see a push towards content that is created for the purposes of trying to monetize or self promote for the purposes of making money. The shilling is the worst part of lot of plarforms because of corporate interests that need to recoup costs or want to have a successful IPO so leads to inevitable ways to monetize users and monetizing users.
Leave the popular crowd drawing shills on the corporate platforms. While it would be nice for the fediverse to have more niche thriving communities if it means becoming filled with shills then at that point why even bother with the fediverse.
I mean, I’d like this to become as successful, but not at the price of manipulating users.
deleted by creator
Depends. I don’t think “successful” means the same as “having the most users”.
The Linux community is awesome and we are only 3%. It’s already enough users for Linux to be amazing.
I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts.
Conditional manipulation? If you can pass an awareness test you get an algorithm free experience, but if you can’t, then it dumps you into lemmy.world and caters your browsing towards outrage and echo chambers?
A basic awareness test is built into the fediverse, you have to choose an instance to sign up on in order to create an account and participate. This filters out everyone whose intellectual capacity doesn’t go further than tapping “install” in their smartphone’s app store.
Rage is engaging. Marketing works. Without the rage algorithms and heavy marketing, Fediverse will always be niche. I think that’s okay.
I prefer quality over quantity. Spammers, advertisers, “influencers”, brainless
usersconsumers who can’t tell the difference between an “app” and a website, and other “mainstream” phenomena can stay in their corporate internet cesspits. Their absence alone makes a platform a lot more pleasant to use.I find the fediverse has a much nicer feeling about it. At least the instances I’ve seen.
I scrolled a bit on Reddit yesterday and I immediately saw how negative it was in comparison
I just want the fediverse to be useful, good, welcoming to everyone and pleasant to use. If that means we get 0.1% of the audience that combined mainstream social media gets, I’m fine with that. If we get 100% of the audience that combined mainstream social media gets, I’m fine with that too. Quality, not quantity.
“We aren’t being manipulated and exploited enough.”
I only care for utility, and a minor social engagement at times, preferably without dredditor type interaction. This pretty much requires an intellectual and tech content focus. I’m kinda wishing we could get post numbers up, but we are at the busiest time of year for a lot of academics and end of summer vacations for a lot of the rest.
deleted by creator
I’m a bit torn about this. On one hand I fully agree with you, let them stew in their filth. But on the other hand: I still have to live in a society where people who have been indoctrinated by their filter bubble get to vote.
Then on the first hand again: messing with their freedom of speech because I disagree with it is fucked up. It’s complicated.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom for massive corporations to push enormous misinformation campaigns, full of lies, to promote their environment and society destroying agenda, all under the guise of news.
According to which definition?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like it either. But the only difference between someone knowingly propagating misinformation, and someone doing it because they honestly believe it to be true… is in their head. You can’t control for that (not should you want to, imho).
For that matter, repeat the misinformation enough, and the former group disappears until only the second group is left.
I think the problem in this case isn’t freedom of speech, but the ability to scream so loud that other voices can’t reach the audience. Corpos and governments use their already established influence to control narrative.
Could you elaborate on that? It’s hard to see which voices are drowned out, on account of them, well, bring drowned out ;)
I personally think it’s more the case that people are just locked into their own little bubbles, thanks to algorithms feeding them a mixture of what they want to hear (to feel validated) and of what upsets them (to get that outrage interaction).
If anything, I think that governments and traditional media are having a lot less influence, in favour of outrage-based, exaggerated, skewed or just down misrepresented takes of the facts - perpetuated by upset participants in social media.
Well for one, I don’t think corporations are people, and therefore they don’t have freedom of speech to begin with, so the argument is moot. I understand that legally they do, but I think that law is bullshit and has resulted in great amounts of suffering.
So you’re not opposed to freedom of speech, but freedom of press?
But what’s the alternative? People are allowed to post their opinions, but once they’re part of a company (like a news agency), their publications have to be vetted for by… What, exactly?
News agencies are supposed to report things as they happen, not spin things to fit the agendas of the wealthy. Yes, news used to be, and should again be unbiased. This used to be a law in the United States, that if the news reported a bias in a story, they had to report the other side as well. Regan eliminated that (The Fairness Act) in the 80s and we’ve been getting more divided ever since.
deleted by creator