My Problems with Mastodon
Even with growing pains accommodating an influx of new users, Lemmy has made it clear that a federated social media site can be nearly as good as the original thing. I joined Lemmy, and it exceeded my expectations for a Reddit alternative run by an independent team.
These expectations were originally pretty low when Mastodon, the popular federated Twitter alternative, was the only federated social media I had experience with. After using Lemmy, Mastodon seems to be missing basic features. I initially believed these were just shortcomings of federated social media.
-
Likes aren't counted by users outside your instance, and replies don't seem to be counted at all (beyond 0, 1, 1+), leading to posts that look like they have way more boosts (retweets) than likes or replies:
This incentivizes people to just gravitate toward the biggest instance more than people already do. My guess is that self-hosting a mastodon instance would also not be ideal, since the only likes you'll see are your own.
-
There's really only one effective ways to find popular or 'trending' posts. There's the explore tab which has 'posts', and 'tags' sections.
The 'posts' section shows some trending posts across your instance and all the instances that it's federated with, this is the one I use it the most.
The 'tags' section is a lot like the trending tab on Twitter, but it's reserved just for hashtags, which I guess isn't a huge deal, but it feels like a downgrade. However, I do like the trend line it shows next to each tag!
The 'Local' and 'Federated' tabs are a live feed of post from your home instance and all the other instances, respectively. I feel these are pretty useless and definitely don't warrant their own tabs. Having a local trending tab for seeing popular posts on your instance would be more interesting.
-
The search bar basically doesn't work, is this just me???
-
This one is more minor and more specific to a Twitter alternative, but when looking at a user's follows, you'll only see the one's on your home instance but for some reason this rule doesn't apply to followers.
From what I've heard, a lot of these issues are intentional in order to create a healthier social media experience. Things like less focus on likes, reduces a hivemind mentality, addiction, things like that (I couldn't find a source for this, if anyone has one confirming or disproving this please lmk).
Why this is a Problem
Mastodon seems to have two goals: To be an example of how a federated alternative to Twitter can work well, and to be a healthier social media experience. It's not obvious, but I think these goals conflict with each other. A lot of the features that are removed in the pursuit of a healthier social media will be perceived as the shortcomings of federation as a concept.
In my eyes, Mastodon's one main goal should be proving federated social media as a whole to the public, by being a seamless, familiar, full-featured alternative to Twitter. For me, Lemmy has done that for Reddit, upvotes are counted normally, you can see trending posts locally and globally same with communities, and the search function works! All its shortcomings aren't design flaws, and I fully expect them to be fixed down the road as it matures.
As annoying as Jack Dorsey is, I have high hopes for BlueSky.
I think fundamentally Mastodon can't work. The entire point of Twitter is for celebrities, brands and governments to have a single place to be able to send out a public message and for that message to be seen by everyone, especially those who opt in to it by following. Decentralized alternatives by definition can't do that. Centralization is the entire point of Twitter.
Decentralization does work for Reddit/Lemmy though, because they are content centric, not person centric. I don't care who posts content to the subreddits I follow, just that the content exists, can be easily viewed (RIP third party Reddit apps, hello Lemmy!), and is interesting. Lemmy doesn't need hundreds of millions of people in a single place to create enough content that is interesting, and in fact having fewer people makes the content that is posted more interesting and focused. Lemmy's decentralization is a strength because if this instance doesn't have the interesting content I want, I can just go elsewhere.
Nothing about Mastodon or the fediverse prevents this. In fact government institutions are already using the fediverse this way: https://social.network.europa.eu/@EU_Commission https://social.overheid.nl/@belastingdienst There's some companies who run their own instances also, and no shortage of individuals running single-user instances as a subdomain of the same website they use for their professional brand.
Decentralized =/= Federated. In a federated model, data is still siloed in 24/7 servers that are controlled by people or institutions.
I think it's not that Mastodon couldn't do it, it's that it will end up just being an essentially centralized instance as people will want to be in the same instance as the people/companies they want to follow. How users would want to use Mastodon is counter-intuitive to how the fediverse should work. Lemmy is focused on content (posts and comments) which means there's less somebody to follow and the focus is on the communities.
This is a semi serious question - do people not realize that you can follow across instances and it makes literally no difference?
This is the one reason why some of us were sort of hoping that Threads would federate. Because the celebs and other normies are likely to gravitate there, and there are a few that some of us would still like to follow/interact with.
If anything, this is my criticism against the way that Lemmy handles this. For example, my previous reddit habit was to follow a bunch of subs for TV shows that I watched. So last night when I was watching ST: Strange New Worlds, I really didn't enjoy the experience of digging through 10 communities that each had the episode posts with the same 15 comments, and the occasional new thought. This isn't even a criticism of the posters, if you came to the comments there would be some things that would be wild not to call out. I think ultimately I'd almost rather see the federation model for reddit-like services move down in the stack, and federate the communities rather than the whole instance. EG: there is a major ST collective community assimilating the smaller ones and becoming greater than the sum of their parts. Of course, this is also probably partially just because Lemmy/Kbin are still in their infancy, and I have a feeling that as time goes, things are more or less going to centralize in this way anyway, in the same way you could have multiple subs on reddit, but there was usually 1-2 big ones at most.
This isn't a problem for mastodon, because when someone like Jeri Ryan joins, it doesn't matter on what instance, I can still follow her in one place, see who she follows and follows her for other like-minded individuals, see all of her posts and re-posts, etc. What instance you're on makes very little difference after the first five minutes or so and you're acquainted with how it works.
You're looking at it from the perspective of someone who already has a general understanding of fediverse. If Jeri Ryan joins an instance, which instance do you his followers will join? Most likely the same instance, because they're here to follow Jeri and they don't know what instance to choose so they choose the most familiar one, the one Jeri is on. New users will congregate on instances that have people they want to follow and the followees most likely join whichever instance is the biggest or has someone they want to follow (because it's not like they know any better how to pick an instance), which means people will centralize on either one or a handful of instances.
You can even see this happening in with Lemmy. Most people don't know which instance to pick so they picked the biggest one, lemmy.world.
I don't think necessarily have a few large instances is problematic. It's fine as long as people can move to other instances, the issue would be if those instances leverage their size to force incompatibilities or defederation.