@fediverse Let's face it. When talking about the Fediverse, it is very hard to sell interoperability between different types of instances as a major advantage.
@fediverse Let's face it. When talking about the Fediverse, it is very hard to sell interoperability between different types of instances as a major advantage.
@fediverse Let's face it. When talking about the Fediverse, it is very hard to sell interoperability between different types of instances as a major advantage.
You're viewing a single thread.
@fediverse The point is that, given the current characteristics and limitations of the Fediverse at large, how should we recommend software to people interred in joining?
Should we aim to have them use only one software/instance given their interests? i.e. I'm interested in having the most similar experience to Instagram, so I should use ONLY Pixelfed? But what if, like me, I want to have an official presence online and still want to interact with other communities online that are thread-based?Do not recommend one software and/or one instance.
Using your scenario, would you recommend photography instances based on #Mastodon knowing Mastodon only allows up to 4 “attached” images? Not only that, Mastodon will only display 4 images even if there are more than that?
Or, are you going to recommend #Pixelfed designed for images. Or, maybe #Firefish, #Friendica, #Hubzilla, #Streams, which all allow more than 4 images and will display all the images even if it exceeds their software's attach limit?
Quite frankly, in my opinion, with the image display alone, Mastodon is highly not recommended. So, the number of users and instances Mastodon have does not make it the best #Fediverse software, as you have mentioned earlier, “Mastodon is the level of UX other projects should aim to”. It's not.
The best approach is we understand what the user needs and suggest to them the appropriate software and instances that will suit their needs.
Let's forget about the Fediverse for a while.
We have to remember that not everyone is on Twitter or Facebook. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who only have an Instagram account. Why? They don't need Twitter and Facebook.
In Korea, for example, they have their own culture and platforms for communication Twitter/Facebook-like, so they don't need those. But many of them have Instagram accounts.
Now, let's go back to the Fediverse.
If those are the users we are reaching out to, then there should be no problem recommending Pixelfed. Because for these target market, their only concern and type of use is to share, well, photos or their latest digital artwork. They don't care about a Twitter/Facebook-like experience or use.
That brings us back to the features of #ActivityPub. It is an “added benefit”.
- Users who want to follow this content creator can do so using their existing account.
Okay, you can't do this with #Lemmy, the last time I checked, however, you can do it with #Kbin. That's a Lemmy limitation, not the fediverse.
- For the content creator who migrated to the fediverse, in particular, Pixelfed in our scenario, they have a greater reach because they're federated.
(Extra: You can actually turn Pixelfed into a regular Twitter-like software if you are using the web UI. Although, last time I heard it will be removed eventually.)
(Extra 2: BookWyrm also allows Twitter-like feeds and interaction, it's not restricted to just books.)
@youronlyone @fediverse This is a great suggestion. So, as you correctly are saying, there must be a focus on the user and their needs. I think a wizard could be useful (but not like https://distrochooser.de , because options are limited, same results).
This hypothetical wizard should allow the user to choose between software and instances, based on a set of characteristics.
I think we lack something like this. Am I wrong?@youronlyone @fediverse Thank you for pointing that out. You expressed it way better than me. I agree. That's why probably we need to recommend different software to different users.
>recommend software to people interested in joining?
What would be more useful is a _reliable_, _independent_ reviewer of currently available software that works within the Fediverse to point people to Something that compares and contrast the different solutions. eg: Voyager v Mastedon v Thorium v Pixelfed.
@root_beer @fediverse I understand the point, but what if there are different needs and use cases? Like a network of schools in a specific region that want to coordinate, interact and share events among them?
@RookieNerd I think most instances have there place when it comes to what users may want there user experience to be like;
Mastodon - a more Twitter / X like experience where you can microblog
PixelFed - a more Instagram like experience where you can share Images without the META data collection
Lemmy - more towards a Reddit like experience
ext.
The good part of the Fediverse is that we can join together through different parts and interact from our own instances (including ones we run ourselves). The main reasons people seem to not want to move over is because they are used to the social media they are already one, the main people they follow don't want to move across and Instances are somewhat confusing at first.My thoughts are that if META does actually make Threads federate then it will not only open people's mind a bit more when it comes to the Fediverse but maybe other social media's will follow including METAs Instagram and Facebook making it so you no longer have to worry if you are on 'X' website / app instead you just ask for there username and you can chat and see there posts.
@RookieNerd @fediverse @SamXavia
The specific use case is why I think a reliable, independent review of each is useful.
What differentiates these Lemmy clients:
* #Muffed;
* #Voyager;
* #Eternity;
* #Lemmy Redirect;
* #Jerboa;
* #Thunder;
* #Combustable;
* #Liftoff;
* #Lemmur;There are almost as many clients for each of #Pixelfeed, #Mastedon, #PeerTube, and the rest of the #Fediverse, for a single platform.
Switch platforms, and discover a plethora of other clients.