Marketing sucks, but I think we're failing to push the "unique selling proposition" (ugh) of the #fediverse. So many kinds of social media exist, but this place is about "attention democracy". We are "decentralized boosts with comments". That the best art, info and ideas go viral, as decided by everyone collectively. No gatekeepers or advantages for advertisers. It embraces journalism's ideals. It's why it matters at a cultural level. It should be the focus of future development and our message.
Well, keep in mind that this isn't necessarily true.
#Fediverse delivers a firehose of content around to the different instances, but the people running the instances decide for themselves what to do with it, whether to show it to users, which users to show it to, etc.
There absolutely ARE gatekeepers, as many here embrace and promote deferation and blocking of users. And there's nothing stopping a instance owner from accepting money from an advertiser to promote certain content.
Fediverse is just the communication technology. The instance owners are in charge.
I think it's important to be really aware of what this is and isn't.
yes, it isn't true to an absolutist degree. but what you just said isn't true to that degree either. people can move pretty easily. they can pretend to be people they are not and join most instances. they can start their own instances pretty easily. they can fork the software. the instance owners are more in charge than an average user (who can still pretty easily become an instance owner themselves), but nowhere in the same ballpark as a platform owner. and lack of lockin deters ads.
Personally, I think designing the system around instance owners was an unfortunate decision, so I'm critical of that. But it is what it is.
It paints a pretty different picture, though, from attention democracy when users have to choose which instance owner to be subject to, or become an owner themselves with all of those drawbacks.
I just don't want to oversell a dream.
This place isn't nearly so democratic and gatekeeper free. The power imbalances are still front and center, even if you might say they're not as bad as somewhere else.
fediblocking sucks but I think the structure makes sense. This place developed a "safe space" mentality naturally. but as we grow/diversify, we are growing out of that to a large degree.
But if we want great conversations, we have to deal with the intentional abuse (different from fair critique). while rare, jerks (and audiences for their antics) exist. beyond censorship, some people won't speak up cause it's just not worth it. they shouldn't have to deal and block relentlessly.
Right, but this is the reality crashing in :)
This is not a paradise without gatekeepers, where the best ideas go viral as decided by everyone collectively.
No, realistically this is a place where gatekeeping is available to instance owners who want to shape conversations as they think best, and hopefully they will be right, and similarly they can put their fingers on the scales to amplify what they think are the best ideas, regardless of the collective.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, we should be honest about it being the reality.
And in part this is very important to make sure those actors aren't abusing their power over the platform.
@volkris
again, effectively, I think it allows that spreading of ideas. the admin who wants to be strict will lose users (more over time imo). the admin who just goes after jerks is also gatekeeping, but probably in a way that both attracts users and encourages the positive virality I want to see, especially compared to letting jerks create a toxic environment. you're right about what's possible, I just don't see it happening a lot. and yes, like any open system, community vigilance is vital.