On Fediverse Clones
Fediverse wont go anywhere by trying to imitate centralized garbage like Twitter! What do you think, Miya?
Well that’s exactly why Pleroma, Mastodon, Gnusocial are bad.
Why are you trying to make Twitter But Decentralized (or IG Decentralized, FB Decentralized etc.)? Centralization isn’t why they’re bad, their fundamental structure is bad. Of the big fat list of what’s wrong with 2.0 websites, centralization sits last.
Voat didn’t do anything to fix what is cancer about reddit. It just decentralized the cancer that is reddit.
And fedi didn’t fix twitter. It’s just anti-twitter for the kids too alt for prom.
But Miya, what's wrong with the fundamental structure of Twitter?
Pseudonymous identities introduce social egos, reputation into conversation which result in insincere discourse, clique formation, etc.; Limited room for sectioning discussion under sub/topics to accommodate niches; The threaded nature of discussion frustrates extended conversation, it happens in /spite/ of the Twitter structure rather than being bolstered by it.
The nature of federation largely eliminates the branding value of follower ratios, favorite/retweet counters, but stupidly - due to relative network exposure, favoriting doesn’t even serve an expressive, its sole function is sending a notification to the OP.
The real use of twitter is low value microblogging (it’s so cold today!) in some cases upgraded to one liner joke tweets; use as a rudimentary rss (bot accts outputting every article by x publication) or for extended conversation & debate are in antagonism to the platform and largely hindered by its design. There just isn’t much better place for them on the internet as it stands.
Compare Twitter (or FB, IG etc) to USENET which steps the fuck out of the way of the user and just organizes them onto a shared mailing list, or IRC, which is just group text messaging + dms.
2.0 services aggressively organize the way people communicate on their platforms in their fundamental structure, & instead of being blindly imitated in the name of decentralization, their structure should be considered.
In a sense, the federated decentralized copies are WORSE than their originals bc the original knows exactly what manipulation it wants and aredesigned to achieve that. The attention economy, censorship and algorithmic control of content are FEATURES, implemented by design, and the fedi copycats don’t apply Henderson’s fence in their backwards engineering, mindlessly keeping the structure designed for those goals.
Ok, Miya, but how does microblogging concept help the "attention economy, censorship and algorithmic control of content"?
Microblogging lets content be read rapidly without any significant time, intellectual or emotional investment; its blogging in an accessible, low-cost form. Putting it on a social network further dilutes the meaning-in-context that independent microblogs carry in their identity/brand/style, lowering the cost of consumption further and gamifying it into an attention economy; where each post directly competes for collective attentionspace. All of twitters interactive elements beyond simple tweeting—liking, retweeting, public following/followers—is designed to extend and exploit this gamification (and thus user engagement) by publicly signalling social ranking-values and allowing user manipulation of content organization (ie retweeting). Extending the organization of the order and spread of shared content through algorithms is just a more nuanced control that was too advanced for the early Twitter implementations.
What's a pure, unmanipulative form of community microblog? Probably something like mebious.co.uk, or the irc sidebar in a popular Twitch stream. No manipulation of content ordering (by algorithm or user, eg retweeting), just a direct, unadulterated linear stream of user posts (or in mebious's case, hidden linearity within the most recent 10 posts). Looking at its purest expression, is it really the foundation that is correct for what we're trying to mis-use the manipulative 2.0 form for?