> Mastodon-the-software is used by far by the most people on fedi. The biggest instance, mastodon.social, is home to over 200.000 active accounts as of this writing. This is roughly 1/10th of the whole #Fediverse, on a single instance.
> Worse, Mastodon-the-software is often identified as the whole social network, obscuring the fact that Fediverse is a much broader system comprised of a much more diverse software.
@rysiek Thank you fot that article. It is important for us here to remember that decentralization should NOT have center.
If we want internet as open space for discussion we have to remember past.
@rysiek the Fediverse is much more than just Mastodon, you say 🤔 are you refering to Funkwhale for music libraries for example? #funkwhale at this stage has proved not to be usable for me. It has bugs.
@rysiek just read the blog post. Question: when I subscribe to an instance, how do I know if it is a mastodon-sofware instance or an instance build on other software? I have 3 instances and want to find out
@Dricc go to the landing page of the instance, and there should be information on what software it's running. Every instance does it a bit differently.
@rysiek oh well, my 3 instances are poweree by Mastodon software... Actually I didn't even know there were instances runing on other software. It should be more visible for newcomers, as you say it matters, I understand
All of them are superior to Mastodon in features while requiring fewer server resources.
There's even more stuff in the Fediverse. For example #Friendica which is 6 years older than Mastodon; it was created as a decentralised Facebook replacement.
Or #Hubzilla which started its life as a fork of Friendica 4 years before Mastodon. It goes far beyond even what Friendica can do. It's more like a "decentralised social content management system" with features that'd make you dizzy, not to mention that Hubzilla introduced #NomadicIdentity 11 years before #Bluesky claimed to have invented it.
And then there are those many more specialised projects, for example:
And the best is: "Fediverse" means that all this connects to all this. You can connect to pretty much each of these like to another Mastodon account, and you can read posts from all over the Fediverse on Mastodon.
For example, I'm on Hubzilla, but you can read my post on Mastodon. This is the spirit of the Fediverse.
@andrei_chiffa and if you read the blogpost you might notice that I explain why I think language is important here, and also that as far as instances are concerned, I am mainly concerned about mastodon.social, because of it's humongous size.
I myself use a pretty large instance, but it's a far cry from the 1/10th of fedi that m.s represents.
Those trade-offs you mention become even more difficult if there is a huge instance that people are weary to defederate from even if it misbehaves.
There is a massive conflation of mastodon.social with Mastodon with ActivityPub
The Big Thing is the Activity Pub.
However, this is a FOSS developer/enthusiast perspective.
Realistically, most users are not FOSS developers and are here to connect and interact with their friends and news sources (hopefully without giving eyes and money to billionaires).
And the selection of instances has massive implication for a lot of people because of existing power balance in the off-line world. For instances federated around a theme (eg scientific field), the people moderating the instance are
Either in positions of power to have free time to administrate/moderate and have had the visibility to bring on board people
Or under pressure from those in position of power to suppress/repot some types of speeches
In academia - a domain I happen to be intimately familiar and that ended up on Twitter as SciTwitter, ended up specifically because pressure of moderation applied internally (academic institution mailboxes, peer-reviewed journals, opinion columns, ...) was not possible there.
Because you might be 5x Nobel and Harvard/MIT/Stanford Dean, you aren't shutting down conversations.
When two experts in academic misconduct (the ones who called BS on the initial papers on hydroxychloroquine in COVID) tried to join Mastodon, they were rapidly kicked off from several science-specific instances, because of the amount of people disliking them for having ruined careers of their peers/collaborators and risking ruining theirs.
@andrei_chiffa what is your point, exactly? You can do exactly the same on fedi, regardless what instance you're on and what software it uses. And the more different instances are out there, the more difficult it is to shut down a debate.
In theory - yes; in practice, you have real-world power relations which make you a bigger target and some instances more ready to fight for you and protect you. Or moderators going after you on smaller, thematic instances you would have initially chosen.
Like Fedi does not float in vacuum, and decentralization by itself is not a guarantee of robustness or safety. It can be part of the resilience strategy, but is not by itself.
> Like Fedi does not float in vacuum, and decentralization by itself is not a guarantee of robustness or safety. It can be part of the resilience strategy, but is not by itself.
Oh, here we totally agree. But centralization brings very specific risks and failure modes with it. There are no easy answers.
For all of its defaults, Mastodon.Social offer the same guarantees. Rochko is now highly visible and has assistance of EFF, AI, German government and a bunch of people in the FOSS to keep Mastodon safe for people on it.
Which for a lot of people outweighs all the other considerations, especially during the initial sign-up.
This might change as Mozilla, Medium and similar giants with a reputation of their own start to join, but for now Mastodon.Social stands on its own.
And tbh, I don't think it's something that we should be complaining about. Just like Ubuntu and Red Hat were gateways to Linux/BSD/UNIX-Like that pulled people away from Windows and MacOS, Mastodon.Social is a gateway to pull people away from walled gardens of Web 2.0.
Are Mastodon / Mastodon.Social perfect? Of course not.
Are they headed in the direction of perfection? Probably not.
Are they a step in the right direction? Absolutely.
@andrei_chiffa I went through that cycle with identi.ca. I got people on-board. Including a ministry in PL government. And then one decision — to redeploy it as incompatible piece of software — completely screwed it up. This is not hypothetical, this is my lived experience.
And now I am seeing mastodon.social in a very similar position. And so I worry that all this effort of bringing people over will be for nothing, if something happens to m.s.
I see where you are coming from, but I don't think that now that W3C has ratified ActivityPub protocol any ground-breaking changes will be made. Especially given that Mastodon is much more mature now than identi.ca was then.
And even if they are the "move to instance" function with heavy-weights able to scale their instances, such as Mozilla, will allow most of active users to roll out to keep the federation to other instances.
@andrei_chiffa account migration does not migrate posts, and that's keeping a lot of people from migrating. Also, it is not easy to solve as the protocol makes it very difficult to handle content address moves in any sane way.
But as I wrote in the blogpost, this is something that we must work to improve on. Account migration is super important.
> For all of its defaults, Mastodon.Social offer the same guarantees.
I strongly disagree. Every other instance offers similar guarantees. And the more there are, the harder it is to shut down any debate — suddenly you'd have to convince dozens or hundreds of admins, instead of a single guy, to shut a debate down.
The bigger mastodon.social becomes, the more pressure it has to deal with, and more likely it buckles under it.
If you are a small server hobbyist admin, and you have a red-faced screaming lawyer screaming that they will sue you unless you remove those toots and that couple of users and goes after you in court, chances that you comply or at least shut the instance are high.
If you are Mozilla or Rochko with EFF and EU behind you, you DGaF, because you can take the heat and deal with it.
@andrei_chiffa if you are a high-powered lawyer hired by a powerful entity to kill a debate, you will much prefer to deal with a single large entity that has well-understood pressure points and maybe even a lawyer working for them, than having to deal with dozens or hundreds of small operations of which many will be in random jurisdictions, and at least a bunch will tell you to sod off.
Decentralization also helps in meatspace. Removing single points of failure works across the board.
My concern are frivolous suits that you need 100k+ legal council to get tossed.
The type that people doing public outreach on global warming, vaccines, reproductive rights, gun laws, and other similar topics constantly get thrown at them several times a year.
But even if we assume a powerful attacker, by the time major entities will notice a lawsuit, smaller instances would have already folded.
So instead of a proper fight, they are getting to chase around their target.
@andrei_chiffa so we must find a way to protect smaller instances. A mutual legal fund or some such. That's something EFF or EDRi could perhaps consider.
This kind of conversation makes way more sense to me as it focuses on solving the problem.
But that creates a centralization on a different level (eg rules on the moderation to get covered by such fund).
I am not saying it is preferable - just that large servers have their place, and that in the current circumstances the mastodon.social sign-up can make a lot of sense to newcomers.
@andrei_chiffa and I never said large instances make no sense. I use one! And I also said that the sign-up process needs to be simplified.
But this has to be balanced against the risks that mastodon.social poses to the whole network. Because it does pose risks to the entire network, as explored in the blogpost.
However, compared to other risks that letting mastodon.social inflate actually mitigates -
starting with Mastodon going the way of IRC for the same reasons - I think it is a good enough way of action as of now.
@andrei_chiffa and that's where I disagree. Because I've seen a similar risk materialize for a similar social network before. And I don't think we should have to go through this again.
Nor do I think that accepting this risk — the risk related to mastodon.social being as big as it is — is necessary. We could just offer new users a random instance from a roster of a few large verified instances instead.
@andrei_chiffa there is a bunch of science-focused instances. And yes, improvements are needed in the sign-up process, but this can be done without funneling everyone onto a single instance.
And if you funneled people onto a single instance and it happened to be closed, I'm sorry, but that's exactly how focusing on a single instance creates problems. People think "closed for business" instead of "let's try another server".
@andrei_chiffa if BlueSky works for you and your community, fantastic, I hope it continues to do so.
I worry that BlueSky will go through the same enshittification cycle as Twitter did. The same kind of Silicon Valley thinking is behind it, and the protocol is designed to allow for that: https://rys.io/en/167.html
So I expect that in a few years we will be going through the same thing again, with BlueSky users mourning their communities there just as they mourn today the communities on Twitter. 🤷♀️
@rysiek@andrei_chiffa I don't see Twitter lasting much beyond next year's US election - if that long. I think that's going to speed up the BS enshittification cycle
@andrei_chiffa deleted my last toot in that thread. Decided it was not fair to you or your community based on the other things you mentioned elsewhere in your thread.
It's not a question of sign-up: they figured out several reasonably-sized instances relevant to them, signed up on them and then were pushed out by moderators and admins.
Because of real-world power dynamics.
And no, I don't want them to be on Twitter/BlueSky; they don't want to be on Twitter/BlueSky.
But because of real-world power dynamics, the only way they can be on Mastodon (or Fediverse) are mega-instances for which their struggle does not register.
@andrei_chiffa sure, that's an interesting threat model, and a very specific one. I would still suggest other instances than mastodon.social specifically, and spreading the community around several different large-ish instances. For all the reasons discussed above.
It's just that having a safe haven when you sign up is a good starting point, even if it's a mega-instance that most people will move out if they are active on the platform.
And that the current decision to make mastodon.social such a safe haven makes sense from that perspective
@andrei_chiffa then — again, as I mention in the blogpost — let's have a roster of several trusted instances that get presented to new users by default. Instead the single one that happens to be 1/10th of the whole network and is becoming a single point of failure in a meaningful way.
Basically, what I take issue with is the equivalent of Linux distro wars / LISP flavor wars, which delayed or made impossible adoption of great FOSS tech.
Do you have any receipts? This is an honest question, as obviously this is not how things should work — and calling this kind of behaviour out is how we make fedi better and more welcoming. Any place I could read more about it?
I did not like the recent centralising moves by Eugen Rochko, and I did exactly what your article suggests: try out one of the non-Mastodon instances. I liked the interface and the tools they offer, and I liked the warmth & vitality of the local discussion.
What stopped me from making them my home is their aggressive instance blocking. I can't put all my Fedi connections into the hands of a single admin who enjoys his powers a little too much.
@the_roamer sure, but there are literally thousands of other instances. So you can find one that fits your requirements. That's work, of course, so there's that.
On the other hand, staying on mastodon.social would mean risking that other instances defederate from it eventually, when moderation becomes worse with size.
There are no easy answers, and of course people should do what they feel comfortable with doing. 😃
Valid points. I'm on a large UK instance which has offered me a good home. I have no complaints, just the feeling that a smaller instance might offer a more personal local timeline and that a non-Mastodon instance would offer some balance against centralist dictat.
There are smaller Mastodon instances that host several of my contacts and that seem stable in their policies. These would be good candidates for a move. Non-Mastodon servers are harder to judge but I keep my eyes open.
@rysiek@faoluin One reason I'm a little optimistic is, although I'm on mastodon.social, most people I follow are not. In most social networks, about 10% of the people create about 90% of the content, and these people skew away from the big servers. So there's some systemic pressure for everyone to be good federation members.
But yeah, my slight optimism does not mean I feel I can just shrug and assume everything will be fine. So I'm happy that people are being pushy about good federation
@rysiek@faoluin eventually I'll make a secondary acct on a smaller instance and maybe migrate, but for now I'm staying here. partly, I'm more city nomad than town folk, but also curiosity about what works and what doesn't.
I think I have a reasonable mental model of how small groups work, how their moderation and governance work. large groups, I don't understand at all, and I want to be in middle of it for a while. Maybe masto will solve some hard problems that Twitter/Facebook/etc haven't
@gray17@faoluin I believe Fediverse did solve some very hard problems centralized networks have not, and that solution is: community-based moderation, enabled by smaller instances.
@rysiek There doesn't appear to be any appreciation that creating a monoculture is problematic in itself, even before you consider whether there's any intent to be harmful. (It's why I quit mastodon.social.)
@kainoa yup. The first link is when I talk about the project. The second is in a recommendation to switch instances, and so it made sense to link to an instance.
But thank you for checking it, it gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling to know people care!
I do think there is some need for some sort of Fediverse-representing organization. There had been many debates about that, and they inevitably always run into problems related to who has what kind of power in such an org, and what kind of power such an org itself should have.
That's a whole separate can of worms, and way beyond the scope of my blogpost, but of course a valid topic to discuss.
@rysiek well, look at that! That is a sign of maturity, and I'll guess that OStatus didn't have this when the mentioned fragmentation happened?
There are no guarantees ever that one instance/brand won't get big enough to break away from the ecosystem and manage on their own, to everyone's detriment probably.
Still, it's an interesting discussion. I don't really know enough about the alternatives to Mastodon-The-Software. Some questions popped up:
@rysiek I've migrated my account from one Mastodon instance to another. Could I also migrate to another type of instance if I wanted? For example, migrate my account from a Mastodon instance to another instance running GNU Social?
Could a site admin migrate their entire site, including users and content, to another software? Eg from Mastodon to Friendica or GNU Social?
@kefir@rysiek instance migrations have been done from gnu-social to pleroma and from mastodon to pleroma. But it required code changes in pleroma (iirc for password hashes and because objects need to remain fetchable over the original ap-id) and was no trivial task in any way. (And I assume part of why it worked is because the api's were all kinda inspired by each other.)
@rysiek thanks for posting this. I have it in a tab to read a lil later and may comment again, I just wanted to say that I'm very much in agreement that the Mastodon monoculture needs to change, I've thought so for years and I'm really hoping I can get my personal crap sorted so I can work on the projects I've been dreaming up for so long to change it. high hopes for this summer.
In the blogpost ⬆️ I mention the history of #StatusNet (the software), #OStatus (the protocol), and identi.ca (the biggest instance). Identi.ca used to be about 1/10th of all of "OStatus-verse". Then it got redeployed using incompatible software and tore the heart out of that decentralized social network.
I feel this history is very relevant today, as mastodon.social is about 1/10th (by monthly active accounts). And continues to grow.
@nizarus heh, didn't want to tag @evan myself, but since that's already done: I would love to hear your thoughts on it, especially if you feel any parts of my blogpost are unfair, misrepresent stuff, or just paint the wrong picture.
@rysiek Counter.Social was on the Fediverse they voted to de-federate. Similar but not exactly what you were talking about. Better analogy would be IRC.
@Dianora how so? As far as I remember, c.s was never as large or with as much influence on fedi as identi.ca had on OStatus-verse, or as m.s has on fedi today? What am I missing?
@rysiek Ah I see now. You are more worried about mastodon.social forking off from the fediverse because of its growth. Fediverse is suffering from the exact same problem IRC suffered with (or still suffers with) Diversity not consolidation is a strength not a weakness.
@Dianora I am worried about Mastodon-the-software having an outsized influence on the rest of fedi, and about m.s being so huge that if anything were to happen to it, fedi would be pretty badly hurt.
@rysiek@Dianora I think we should acknowledge the fact that the current standard is The Mastodon Protocol (as defined by its implementation). Forget all the ActivityPub bullshit. Is it better now?
I also dive a bit into why the apparent monoculture of #Mastodon on the #Fediverse is a risk to the whole network, and why identifying all of Fediverse with just Mastodon leads to problems.
For example, if we only talk about Mastodon, people will (and do!) demand features to be implemented in that project even though there are other, compatible, projects that might already have them, and might fit the particular use case or community better.
Finally, I give a laundry list of things that I believe need to happen to mitigate the risk stemming from #Mastodon monoculture on the #Fediverse.
I also list some things every person using fedi can do themselves to help mitigate that risk.
I've already seen one vibrant decentralized social network wither on the vine due to monoculture and flagship-instance-itis, and while fedi is much bigger and more resilient already, I do think we should worry about it here too.
@rysiek Perhaps mastodon.social should be the learner instance: the one you join when you first start using the fedi but which you're expected to migrate off of to a more appropriate to you instance in a reasonable time (6 months?).
(I have slightly more nuanced thoughts on the actual implementation but does the principle make any sense?)
@edavies@rysiek part of why i liked using mastodon is that i enjoyed looking at the local feed, and my posts being seen by people there. not only on this art instance, but also a more generalist one which has a specific aesthetic that imo attracts people i more likely would enjoy reading. i haven’t had that experience so i can’t say for sure, but i think that mastodon.social users might not get the appeal of mastodon unless they try a smaller instance right away.
@edavies It would work if the mastodon.social domain would be changed to something like mastodonbeginners.social. With such domain name many people would migrate to other instances naturally, as soon as they would start to feel uncomfortable with "beginners" part.
That "Mastodon monoculture problem" blogpost of mine ⬆️ was written mainly for people already using fedi, but it seems to be getting some traction outside of that bubble too.
I started to worry it will get misinterpreted and read somewhat as "fedi is also centralized".
So I added two paragraphs to make it very clear that this is not the case, and that fedi is a much better choice than any centralized walled garden, and any social networks that only cosplay decentralization.
This is not the first instance of somebody donating their time and expertise to translate a blogpost of mine. Each and every time I am thankful and humbled by that! :blobcatblush:
Every time that happens I am also reassured that CC By-SA :cc: :ccby: :cc_sa: is the right license for my blog.
@rysiek Fun thing about the identi.ca disaster of a migration is how ActivityPub is largely based on pump.io and how the OStatus→ActivityPub migration went pretty smoothly as compatibility was kept for months, leaving time to upgrade (even pretty much unmaintained GnuSocial managed to get there in time).
@lanodan yeah. It always felt like unnecessarily crippling the "OStatus-verse" — but again, I don't assume that was done on purpose. I understand there were reasons for it, some pretty good. But the outcome was what it was.
Add comment