Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
people won’t be addicted to it anymore
Wishful thinking. I'm wasting more time on Lemmy then I ever did on Reddit/Facebook/Twitter/...
However, the biggest advantage to me is that I can filter out what I don't want to see, not be forced to accept what is thrown at me or leav. (I did the latter on all) I now have the option to hide away from 'normals' again.
When you look at the world and see what is considered 'normal', who in their right mind would want to be like that?
Strange
I think the idea that our behavior is somehow related to our systems and not our demographics is the problem. I think the internet is going to change us, not the other way around.
People don't have to like "better" things, and often they simply don't. This is the flaw of laissez-faire, where we're not perfectly rational actors.
Right now the average Fediverse user is an early-adopter type, usually techy. These people are often smarter than average, hence why they wind up in technical fields. Eventually they will not be the majority though, the avg intelligence/education in here will drop to the global avg. So will our behavior.
The changes that people hate at Twitter/meta/reddit? Those are just evidence of malignancy in society. Not sure there's much to heal about the internet individually. It's more systemic. Anyways before I grow a thicker beard and start writing a manifesto or something, just go out there get as big as you can and eat the richest person you see. That's how you fix the problem.
What if they don't look tasty? Would you eat the Zuck?
A bit of bbq sauce can make anything taste good.
250 until an internal temp of 203, he looks like he's a pecan smoke but I've been thinking of trying mango
we don’t have to eat them.
we can fertilise them and then eat the plants that grow on them. Much better.
The advertisers, corporate shills, and bot providers are retooling to attack the fediverse.
It may feel like its 1999 again for a minute, but the $$ driven counter offensive will come.
TikTok and Threads still exist, though.
TikTok crowd is too young to understand issues where people are discussing here lol
It's not all about age, for example average age of active Facebook users is rather high, despite a lot of privacy/centralization issues.
it’s open-source and de-centralized as well, which omits censorship
Not necessarily. It simply allows people to leave an instance that is applying censorship. Admins and mods on instances can essentially do whatever they want. The fediverse could have the same problems the big tech sites do. If most people congregate to single, popular instances of the fediverse, that instance essentially becomes a non-distributed social media site. Then all they have to do is start de-federating and start imposing their own restrictive rules and we're right back to where we started.
It's exactly what everyone is scared of with Threads coming into the Fediverse. If they, or another big instance, sucks most users into their instance they effectively can neuter the fediverse. In order to prevent this, all users need to be aware of moderation on their instances and draconian moderation on other instances. We need to be aware of de-federation for instances to spot those trying to isolate themselves as a way to control their users (instead of self-preservation).
That's what I meant. Censorship is mostly impossible unless people act like an idiot and flock to 1 instance only, and even then, the instance can be easily substituted, since you don't need to delete your account to leave the instance; just shift it to another instance.
The fediverse will fall under the same pressures that caused the censorship in other areas when it gets big enough.
Isn't it de-centralized though?
Yes, but I think it's as @[email protected] says. As any form of social media grows past a certain point, the more everything becomes 'averaged out' to the lowest common denominator. IE the things that get upvoted the most end up being only things with mass appeal across the breadth of the user base. From past experience we know this is by and large rage-bait.
Of course this can be mitigated to an extent by carefully curating what you're blocking and subscribed to. Furthermore defederating can effect this but I'm not yet knowledgeable enough to guess how effective.
We may understand that, but I don’t think that the groups that will want to censor will.
That's why it will fail. One can just repost the same thing via a different instance, which the group that wants to censor them may not have control of.
I'd share your optimism if Zuck hadn't come out with Threads to the apparently very positive reception it's had. A lot of people who are on Twitter are also on Facebook/Instagram and the ease of extending those accounts to Threads means that most of them, when they get fed up with Musk, will just trade one giant social media corporation for another and nothing will change.
Well, something will change, which is that Meta will be strengthening their monopoly over most major social media sites
Meh. Does it really matter which psychopathic, emotionally stunted billionaire steals your personal data and controls your access to information? It's not like they won't sell it all to each other under the table for the right price anyway. What people have to do is get out from under the thumbs of anyone in Zuck or Musk's position.
Well, no, it doesn't really matter who it is, Meta happens to be the one in that position, it's more the idea that monopolies are bad for basically anything.
I agree. Cartels, which are what we have now between Meta, Twitter and Google, are just as bad as monopolies.
Regarding Threads, It's hard to see through the bullshit right now. End user reports are pretty abysmal, while media coverage remains glowing. Meta has clearly sunk a lot of money into promoting the launch, complete with a ton of astroturfing, paid endorsements, paid content creators, etc.
On the flip side, people have been absolutely desperate for a realistic Twitter alternative. Too many tried (and abandoned) Mastodon. It's entirely possible that Threads will be a just-barely-good-enough Twitter alternative to abandon the Musk abuse.
I won't even make a prediction on it until next month, at the earliest. Let the launch hype fade, and see if it has staying power.
What's so bad about Mastodon that so many people gave up on it? Microblogging isn't really my cup of tea, but I had a look out of curiosity and it seemed to have all the right ingredients, including several large media/celebrity accounts to follow.
It's not that it's bad per se. The whole federation thing is confusing enough that it's a barrier to entry. There's also the fact that change is hard. Mastodon has a different interface, with the associated learning curve. Beyond that, it's not just having a certain number of celebrities/etc, but the right ones. That leads to a chicken and egg problem for a lot of users. Eventually enough people would sign up (and content creators posting to both) that it would trigger a mass migration, but that has not happened yet.
So, after all that, most users decide that Twitter is ok enough for now.
Oh, so it's not Mastodon itself that was rejected, just that the network effect isn't big enough yet. That makes a lot of sense.
Are end user reports abysmal? I'm having a lot of fun on there, and my colleagues and acquaintances all seem to be enjoying it too.
Unlikely. Zuck can make another Facebook and millions will still flock to it thinking they've 'escaped' Facebook.
Spez can make a Reddit 'successor' and millions will still flock to it thinking they've 'escaped' Reddit.
The point is, we need to dethrone the root of the problem.
Another Facebook?
You mean Instagram?
Seen it happen many times before but not 3 big sites at the same time. I don't think Twitter, Reddit, and Meta are going to be gone in a few years but are certainly past their peaks and driving away users to places like this. The cycle continues.
Yes, the big three all having issues at the same time is a huge problem. When you throw in the added competition of the Fediverse gaining popularity, the next couple years on the internet should be interesting.
I'm addicted to it :)
I'm going through some personal stuff and reading Lemmy helps take my mind off it, and due to the smallish size and lack of ads and other bullcrap it doesn't repel me as easily as other similar sites... I'm even using an app, which I never did for Reddit.
Maybe, this is exactly what they wanted? Did they want to corral us into the Social Media that would ultimately suit them the best? Reddit and Twitter where sacrificial lambs?
