• liwott@nerdica.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I meant that the people who actually make use of federation are almost exclusively programmers. The rest of the users don’t benefit from federation.

    Curious to see what numbers you are basing yourself on. I think most users use federation, as in communicate with users on other instances. As a fapsi.be user, don’t you mostly communicate with users from other instances?

    It’s okay to let a few hands hold all the power, as long as their interests align with ours. Your philosophical disagreement with this concept has very little effect on reality.

    What effect on reality does your agreement have though? If you want to trust benevolent dictators to stay benevolent and choose benevolent successors, let’s agree to disagree.

    That’s not what i said,

    It was suppose to be an example to the statement :

    Why do you think all of the Fediverse has the same boring demographic of privalaged keyboard warrior programmers pretending like they are leading the revolution against big tech? And why is it that whenever another demographic arrives as refugees, they immediately demand defederation or die out immediately?

    Lemmygrad don’t want to defederate from a population of “keyboard warrior programmers”, they want to defederate from “libs”, by which they actually mean anyone that is not both ML and anti-west.

    As long as big tech can meet the needs of people, they will keep using their services.

    Except that, because of network effet, people will keep using the service no matter how bad it becomes, as long as it keep a few basic functionalities? I use Facebook, not because I like the way it is, but because:

    • all my IRL friends are there
    • some job announcements appear only there

    What is implied in your message is that is people keep using the service, it means it is a good one, as if there were no other constraints. How is this not an apology of capitalism?

    The majority of the people don’t have any problem with this, why should they change their ways because some nerds decided that making a facebook account is a sin?

    The majority of people don’t see a problem in capitalism either, does it mean one should stop advocating against it.

    Facebook is a company that harvests users’ data and attention, under the hood of some social networking capabilities. Having a facebook account is not a sin, but it is exposing oneself to that, as well as pressuring one’s friends into doing the same, as I mentioned above. Federation aims at providing alternative for that.

    (e.g., ads; users want as little as possible, big tech wants the maximum). If you want to solve the problems of users, you should first figure out irreconcilable contradictions like this

    The fact that all successful big tech apps have ads is not because nobody had the idea of providing alternatives that are lighter in ads. It is because at some point they reached such a big size that network effect would be sufficient to keep users there anyway. Is your solution to that just hoping that someday one platform will be created that will be free of ads even when it reaches such sizes?

    Federation aims at that, by allowing to build a big network without a single person being able to impose marketing choices over the whole network

    • Leslie(she/her)@fapsi.be
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Except that, because of network effet, people will keep using the service no matter how bad it becomes, as long as it keep a few basic functionalities?

      This is the problem. You are projecting what you consider bad to the majority of users. What you call “a few basic functionalities” is all that people want; they don’t care about the rest. They are not staying there because of “network effect”, they are staying because their “few basic functionalities” are satisfied.

      They will demand change only when these “few basic functionalities” are violated (for example, ads that make it impossible to watch videos). This is inevitable, but big tech will try to delay it with subscriptions etc.

      The majority of people don’t see a problem in capitalism either, does it mean one should stop advocating against it.

      Facebook is a company that harvests users’ data and attention, under the hood of some social networking capabilities. Having a facebook account is not a sin, but it is exposing oneself to that, as well as pressuring one’s friends into doing the same, as I mentioned above

      Unlike your argument against Facebook, the advocacy against capitalism is not a moral one; it is a recognition of the irreconcilable contradictions that arise from private ownership and socialised labour. The majority of people will eventually find themselves in a position where it is necessary to fight capitalism. In the same way, the majority of social media users will find themselves in a position to advocate for better alternatives once the contradictions deepen. And when they look for alternatives, federated social media will always be inferior to centralised solutions.

      People leave reddit for lemmy because their “few basic functionalities” were violated. Moving to a federated solution can somewhat solve it, but only at the cost of problems inferior federated software brings. Nobody is willing to tolerate them, except tinkerers who want to play with federated software.

      It’s not the evilness of capitalists that will bring the revolution, but the internal contradictions themselves.

      I don’t outright reject the idea that network effects exist; they do. However, if your argument about network effects is correct, it means that big tech will never be replaced; no amount of alternative federated software you write will be able to replace the “network.” This would imply that big tech has found this small trick that solves all other contradictions and they have reached an ideal stage with no contradictions like communism, in reality the network effect is just a side effect that you observe because of the differences between your needs and the needs of the majority.

      Federation aims at that, by allowing to build a big network without a single person being able to impose marketing choices over the whole network

      Nice dream. But in the real world, the majority of fediverse users are centralised on a few servers, and a minority of admins decide the shape of the network. You have become the same thing you wanted to destroy.

      • liwott@nerdica.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You are projecting what you consider bad to the majority of users.

        I did not use any definition of “bad” here. I said that people staying there is not a sign of their superiority wrt federated network. The preexisting large userbase suffices to explain why it keeps being large.

        They are not staying there because of “network effect”, they are staying because their “few basic functionalities” are satisfied.

        Except that the few basic functionalities (posting, commenting, reacting, following) are not what sets them apart from their federated counterparts.

        And when they look for alternatives, federated social media will always be inferior to centralised solutions.

        You are stating this like a fact, yet you have not explained what the big advantage of centralization is. You actually start from the hypothesis that centralisation is the core thing that everyone wants, even needs.

        You have become the same thing you wanted to destroy.

        Yes, and that went pretty fast. A few comments ago the majority of users were the developpers themselves, and suddenly they are a crowd whose fate is decided by a restricted elite.

        Again, what is your better alternative?