Looking for fediverse platform for a minimal corporate website. https://lemmy.ml/post/7020782
To answer @me 's comment (the thread is not on my instance),
You're asking why Fediverse participation would be different from normal corporate hosting, and then you bring up questions about defederation, and I'd say those questions do a pretty good job of saying why it would be different.
Going from a legal, reliable relationship with one professional company to a system where unknown amateurs around the world can impact your reach is a really big jump.
also if not getting guaranteed eyeballing by paying for reach is "unwelcoming" to businesses then I guess I agree.
But business that want to develop a genuine relationship with their customers certainly can.
@me again, that it's even a question in the first place is part of what makes the difference.
Would mastodon.social defederate the Coca Cola instance? MAYBE the answer is resoundingly no (though it might be yes), but when the marketing department is meeting in a conference room and this possibility even comes up, that's something they never had to deal with when they contracted for normal webhosting services.
So it's a difference that's negative if anything, and that needs to be appreciated.
There's no way "Well, we might be defederated" is a positive consideration. There's only downside with it, even if you and I believe it's unlikely from that one instance.
Beyond that, it's not so unlikely from other instances!
So I can understand why this is offputting to companies.
Thanks, fair point and well explained!
Small equal mechanism but hardly used besides people like me:
Twitter itself didnt garantee reach because brands could be blocked. Now with X its a little different, but I used to block brands with annoying "promoted tweets".
Laborious but payed off because my timeline got decluttered. Over the years I blocked about 700 of them and got a almost add free Twitter experience.
But I guess adoption of that feature was low so brands didnt felt unwelcome.
With LinkedIn its different: you can block an ad but not its brand.
@pre but it's also the functional equivalent of not spending any money or resources or PR strategy to BE blocked.
I get what you're saying and you do have a point, but I'm picturing how things go in the actual board meeting and imagining that the mid-level managers would rather not be seen spending money on a platform where they might be so disrespected, if you want to call it that, even if it means less exposure in the end.
Yeah, I would phrase your point as saying you can't win if you don't play. But I think a lot of these managers would rather not play and save face, even if that means less winning.
the hosting was about requiring business to have their own instance is not "welcoming" which I dont agree because they are used to it.
But why would it depend on "unknown amateurs around the world"?
Be a business and choose professional managed Mastodon hosting on your own domain?
But what do you think?
Would the mastodon.social defederate the Coca Cola instance?
Would Fediblock put Nike's instance on a blocklist?