Going back to the original quote: "The fediverse is like interconnected villages instead of a large metropole. There's no need to shout." and I think it's quite apt.
The fediverse is far closer to early online fora, bulletin boards then it is to e-mail. Maybe you were deeply entrenched in a particular online community, establishing an online identity, a reputation, visibility,... connected to your name. But outside of that domain? Well, you have little social credit on other discussion boards.
This approach models closely to how societies work in reality. And how individuals prioritize their own social connections. First family, then extended family, friends, co-workers, and society at large - an online audience - way down the road. Each of us will subconsciously look at people starting from the implicit question "Who is part of my tribe, who's an outsider?"
Now, the important part here is that you may feel compelled or forced to leave a group, family, tribe,... So, this implies giving up your locally established social credit and hope you can rebuild that elsewhere. For most people, that's an extremely expensive and risky proposition.
So, what do Reddit and Facebook do different, then?
Reddit is hugely successful because it provides a platform that can sustain thousands of small communities. Much like how online fora - but also e-mail based newsgroups or BBS'es - used to work in earlier days. Facebook's killer app is not the wall or your profile - contrary to what you may think - but... facebook groups. The same is true for Telegram or WhatsApp. These are tools that allow you to establish small communities.
And then you have the entire "followers/following" thing.
What Facebook and Reddit did was successfully merge the idea of a portable, persistent identity - a profile - between local communities by building a platform that also made migration and establishing new communities really easy and cheap (just a few clicks: bam! new group or subreddit!)
Now, followers / following: that's NOT a social network. That's an audience. And there's a distinct difference between those two. (even though there's an overlap too)
For all the talk over "engagement", communicating towards an audience is mostly a one-to-many one-way street. You may reach hundreds of thousands on Twitter, but you may only directly engage - and establish a meaningful relationship - with a handful of people.
If you want to directly and presently reach a large audience, then either e-mail newsgroups, the fediverse or online fora are the wrong venues. Arguably, even Reddit is the wrong platform if you directly tap into millions from a single or a few publishing points (accounts).
If you're looking for small communities in which you want to get entrenched, then the fediverse is the right place to be. Even though that comes with the perpetual yet very real trade off of establishing social credit locally which you can never carry with you if you migrate away.
Going back to the original quote: "The fediverse is like interconnected villages instead of a large metropole. There's no need to shout." and I think it's quite apt.
The fediverse is far closer to early online fora, bulletin boards then it is to e-mail. Maybe you were deeply entrenched in a particular online community, establishing an online identity, a reputation, visibility,... connected to your name. But outside of that domain? Well, you have little social credit on other discussion boards.
This approach models closely to how societies work in reality. And how individuals prioritize their own social connections. First family, then extended family, friends, co-workers, and society at large - an online audience - way down the road. Each of us will subconsciously look at people starting from the implicit question "Who is part of my tribe, who's an outsider?"
Now, the important part here is that you may feel compelled or forced to leave a group, family, tribe,... So, this implies giving up your locally established social credit and hope you can rebuild that elsewhere. For most people, that's an extremely expensive and risky proposition.
So, what do Reddit and Facebook do different, then?
Reddit is hugely successful because it provides a platform that can sustain thousands of small communities. Much like how online fora - but also e-mail based newsgroups or BBS'es - used to work in earlier days. Facebook's killer app is not the wall or your profile - contrary to what you may think - but... facebook groups. The same is true for Telegram or WhatsApp. These are tools that allow you to establish small communities.
And then you have the entire "followers/following" thing.
What Facebook and Reddit did was successfully merge the idea of a portable, persistent identity - a profile - between local communities by building a platform that also made migration and establishing new communities really easy and cheap (just a few clicks: bam! new group or subreddit!)
Now, followers / following: that's NOT a social network. That's an audience. And there's a distinct difference between those two. (even though there's an overlap too)
For all the talk over "engagement", communicating towards an audience is mostly a one-to-many one-way street. You may reach hundreds of thousands on Twitter, but you may only directly engage - and establish a meaningful relationship - with a handful of people.
If you want to directly and presently reach a large audience, then either e-mail newsgroups, the fediverse or online fora are the wrong venues. Arguably, even Reddit is the wrong platform if you directly tap into millions from a single or a few publishing points (accounts).
If you're looking for small communities in which you want to get entrenched, then the fediverse is the right place to be. Even though that comes with the perpetual yet very real trade off of establishing social credit locally which you can never carry with you if you migrate away.