Mastodon and Pixelfed got a short mention on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
-
Even then like, I don't know. I don't want my feed to be strictly chronological. For stuff like Twitter-likes and TikTok-likes I want an algorithm. I don't want to be on there all the time, and I don't want it to be my only form of social media. But when I do go on there I want an algorithm to serve me some slop that I don't even know that I want but actually do.
Then you're the target audience for Bluesky and similar. Mastodon and other fediverse sites don't have that and that's what most of the people here prefer.
I forgot about Lemmy for a few days just because it's not so addictive and I like that. It's actually refreshing when you realise you've been gone for a few days without missing it.
-
Even then like, I don't know. I don't want my feed to be strictly chronological. For stuff like Twitter-likes and TikTok-likes I want an algorithm. I don't want to be on there all the time, and I don't want it to be my only form of social media. But when I do go on there I want an algorithm to serve me some slop that I don't even know that I want but actually do.
For stuff like Twitter-likes and TikTok-likes I want an algorithm.
Until recommendation algorithms are transparent and auditable, choosing to use a private service with a recommendation algorithm is giving some random social media owner the control of the attention of millions of people.
Curate your own feed, subscribe to people that you find interesting, go and find content through your social contacts.
Don't fall into the trap of letting someone (ex: Elon Musk) choose 95% of what you see and hear.
Algorithmic recommendations CAN be good. But when they're privately owned and closed to public inspection, then there is no guarantee that they're working in your best interest.
-
For stuff like Twitter-likes and TikTok-likes I want an algorithm.
Until recommendation algorithms are transparent and auditable, choosing to use a private service with a recommendation algorithm is giving some random social media owner the control of the attention of millions of people.
Curate your own feed, subscribe to people that you find interesting, go and find content through your social contacts.
Don't fall into the trap of letting someone (ex: Elon Musk) choose 95% of what you see and hear.
Algorithmic recommendations CAN be good. But when they're privately owned and closed to public inspection, then there is no guarantee that they're working in your best interest.
Nothing you say is wrong, it's all factual and correct and if the majority of people were wired the way you are I think the world would be a better place. As is though, I think the amount of work Mastodon expects you to put in seems exhausting and off-putting to most people. I know it does me. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. The discussion isn't really about the virtues of each social media platform, the question is why does Bluesky appear at the top of the list and not Mastodon. And the reason is that Mastodon refuses to provide the service most people want from a platform like this: a well-tuned suggestion algorithm. In doing so they maintain purity and a sort of moral high ground, but will always struggle with mass appeal. Most people don't care about what's good for them, they only care about their end user experience.
-
why is Bluesky on top of these lists always, better marketing?
Easier to set up/use, more familiar, way more users currently.
-
Then you're the target audience for Bluesky and similar. Mastodon and other fediverse sites don't have that and that's what most of the people here prefer.
I forgot about Lemmy for a few days just because it's not so addictive and I like that. It's actually refreshing when you realise you've been gone for a few days without missing it.
Yeah this is my relationship with pixelfed. I spend like 30min a week on it tops looking at photography
-
Nothing you say is wrong, it's all factual and correct and if the majority of people were wired the way you are I think the world would be a better place. As is though, I think the amount of work Mastodon expects you to put in seems exhausting and off-putting to most people. I know it does me. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. The discussion isn't really about the virtues of each social media platform, the question is why does Bluesky appear at the top of the list and not Mastodon. And the reason is that Mastodon refuses to provide the service most people want from a platform like this: a well-tuned suggestion algorithm. In doing so they maintain purity and a sort of moral high ground, but will always struggle with mass appeal. Most people don't care about what's good for them, they only care about their end user experience.
Some things are incredibly appealing to everyone and also bad for society. We have to treat those things responsibly.
Recommendation algorithms can be useful, to assist you in discovering content. As a tool that you choose to use. If I can select a person that I like listening to and get a list of other people who I may be interested in (assuming that the algorithm is simply matching me to similar peers and not also adding in some "also Elon/Bezos/whoever really wants you to see these guys" skew)... that would be a useful tool.
However, the recommendation algorithms should not be used to make the second-by-second decision about what you see next. The next item in your feed should always be there because of a decision that you make, not as a means of "maximizing engagement".
Of course people like these features, these algorithms are literally trained to maximize how likable their recommendations are.
It's like how people like heroin because it perfectly fits our opioid receptors. The problem is that you can't simply trust that the person giving you heroin will always have your best interests in mind.
Recommendation algorithms are a useful tool but, only when used in moderation. Attaching a recommendation algorithm directly to your brain via a curated content feed is incredibly unhealthy for both the individual and society.
-
For stuff like Twitter-likes and TikTok-likes I want an algorithm.
Until recommendation algorithms are transparent and auditable, choosing to use a private service with a recommendation algorithm is giving some random social media owner the control of the attention of millions of people.
Curate your own feed, subscribe to people that you find interesting, go and find content through your social contacts.
Don't fall into the trap of letting someone (ex: Elon Musk) choose 95% of what you see and hear.
Algorithmic recommendations CAN be good. But when they're privately owned and closed to public inspection, then there is no guarantee that they're working in your best interest.
We get what you’re saying but we’re talking about the experience some people want, private corporate owned algorithm or otherwise.
-
why is Bluesky on top of these lists always, better marketing?
In November last year, Bluesky had more than 3 million daily users in the US alone. According to fedidb, the Fediverse as a whole has 1.5 million monthly users globally.
-
We get what you’re saying but we’re talking about the experience some people want, private corporate owned algorithm or otherwise.
They're good at predicting what people want to see, yes. But that isn't the real problem.
The problem isn't that they predict what you want to see, it is that they use that information to give you results that are 90% what you want to see and 10% of results that the owner of the algorithm wants you to see.
X uses that to mix in alt-right feeds. Google uses it to mix in messages from the highest bidder on their ad network and Amazon uses it to mix in product recommendations for their own products.
You can't know what they're adding to the feed or how much is real recommendations that are based on your needs and wants and how much is artificially boosted content based on the needs and wants of the owner of the algorithm.
Is your next TikTok really the next highest piece of recommended content or is it something that's being boosted on the behalf of someone else? You can't know.
This has become an incredibly important topic since people are now using these systems to drive political outcomes which have real effects on society.
-
It's Twitter 2.0. It's what the average person wants. It's popular because it has algorithms and all the other addictive things from corporate social media.
Mastodon and others don't have these things and are harder to get started with. Picking a server is weird and scary. After that, getting your home feed started is difficult if you don't know to just follow some hashtags.
Picking a server is weird and scary.
As a scientist, I would be cautious of jumping to a conclusion and beating ourselves up for it until we have crystal clear proof that that is the specific thing that's turning people away.
-
Picking a server is weird and scary.
As a scientist, I would be cautious of jumping to a conclusion and beating ourselves up for it until we have crystal clear proof that that is the specific thing that's turning people away.
I don't think we need a full-on study to show that an additional barrier to entry hurts adoption.
-
Some things are incredibly appealing to everyone and also bad for society. We have to treat those things responsibly.
Recommendation algorithms can be useful, to assist you in discovering content. As a tool that you choose to use. If I can select a person that I like listening to and get a list of other people who I may be interested in (assuming that the algorithm is simply matching me to similar peers and not also adding in some "also Elon/Bezos/whoever really wants you to see these guys" skew)... that would be a useful tool.
However, the recommendation algorithms should not be used to make the second-by-second decision about what you see next. The next item in your feed should always be there because of a decision that you make, not as a means of "maximizing engagement".
Of course people like these features, these algorithms are literally trained to maximize how likable their recommendations are.
It's like how people like heroin because it perfectly fits our opioid receptors. The problem is that you can't simply trust that the person giving you heroin will always have your best interests in mind.
Recommendation algorithms are a useful tool but, only when used in moderation. Attaching a recommendation algorithm directly to your brain via a curated content feed is incredibly unhealthy for both the individual and society.
Treating it responsibly in this case would mean actually offering a recommendation algorithm that is free of corporate interest, then. To go along with your own simile, you can't really go up to a junkie and say "Hey, you should really consider giving up heroin and having a salad instead. It's better for you." and expect it to be a convincing argument. Which is why Bluesky is succeeding and Mastodon isn't.
-
In November last year, Bluesky had more than 3 million daily users in the US alone. According to fedidb, the Fediverse as a whole has 1.5 million monthly users globally.
Bluesky could really do us a favour and turn on ActivityPub
-
Nothing you say is wrong, it's all factual and correct and if the majority of people were wired the way you are I think the world would be a better place. As is though, I think the amount of work Mastodon expects you to put in seems exhausting and off-putting to most people. I know it does me. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. The discussion isn't really about the virtues of each social media platform, the question is why does Bluesky appear at the top of the list and not Mastodon. And the reason is that Mastodon refuses to provide the service most people want from a platform like this: a well-tuned suggestion algorithm. In doing so they maintain purity and a sort of moral high ground, but will always struggle with mass appeal. Most people don't care about what's good for them, they only care about their end user experience.
And the reason is that Mastodon refuses to provide the service most people want from a platform like this: a well-tuned suggestion algorithm.
Why are you ignoring the fact that Bluesky has a MUCH larger marketing budget AND it gets basically free unlimited (barely critical) coverage from the tech press.
You are drawing conclusions left and right on incomplete information and it destroys any semblance of a point you are trying to make.
-
Damn given that Bluesky has millions to burn on marketing I would say the Fediverse is clowning on Bluesky seeing as it the Fediverse has a $0 marketing budget.
For all the money and prestige Bluesky has access to, they still have only managed to double our size? That is kind of sad really, it must be because they keep adding things people actually don't want.
-
Picking a server is weird and scary.
As a scientist, I would be cautious of jumping to a conclusion and beating ourselves up for it until we have crystal clear proof that that is the specific thing that's turning people away.
Not that one thing alone, obviously. But it's a big part of it.
We can call it a hypothesis if that helps.
-
They're good at predicting what people want to see, yes. But that isn't the real problem.
The problem isn't that they predict what you want to see, it is that they use that information to give you results that are 90% what you want to see and 10% of results that the owner of the algorithm wants you to see.
X uses that to mix in alt-right feeds. Google uses it to mix in messages from the highest bidder on their ad network and Amazon uses it to mix in product recommendations for their own products.
You can't know what they're adding to the feed or how much is real recommendations that are based on your needs and wants and how much is artificially boosted content based on the needs and wants of the owner of the algorithm.
Is your next TikTok really the next highest piece of recommended content or is it something that's being boosted on the behalf of someone else? You can't know.
This has become an incredibly important topic since people are now using these systems to drive political outcomes which have real effects on society.
You’re very fixated on something we all agree with and missing the thrust of the point.
People want an algorithm, whether it’s parasitic or manipulative or whatever. Most people do not care enough to object. They will pick it over a mastodon/lemmy/etc experience to get curation. That’s all we’re saying
-
Treating it responsibly in this case would mean actually offering a recommendation algorithm that is free of corporate interest, then. To go along with your own simile, you can't really go up to a junkie and say "Hey, you should really consider giving up heroin and having a salad instead. It's better for you." and expect it to be a convincing argument. Which is why Bluesky is succeeding and Mastodon isn't.
It also means decoupling the recommendation system from people's feeds.
Having a "you may like this" section is a lot less abusable than "the next item in your doomscroll is <recommendation>".
Bluesky is just another Twitter. Everything that happened to Twitter can happen to Bluesky. It's not fundamentally changing anything except trading Elon for a different owner.
It's not a bad change, people want Twitter after all... but it isn't fixing any problems in the underlying incentive structures or algorithm control.
The core problem is that curated feeds allow the owner to substitute their recommendations in place of recommendations that would interest you.
Until the owner can't do that, the social network is always one sale away from being the next Twitter/Truth Social.
Bluesky is fixing social media by changing the owner, Mastodon/ActivityPub is fixing social media by getting rid of the owner.
I think the latter is the better choice for how to structure these things.
-
why is Bluesky on top of these lists always, better marketing?
Better marketing, better UI, lots of users, and plenty of non-political content.
-
I don't think we need a full-on study to show that an additional barrier to entry hurts adoption.
It's no different than signing up for an email account
