If they just use a website, they have to put links to Youtube to share videos, or Twitter links to share news, or Facebook if they want to run a promotion/poll.
By running their own federated social media server, they get to be in control of the conversation.
(I'm telling you, sometimes these responses feel like talking with the MS exec who said that internet search was not needed because people had bookmarks)
You're missing the point though. The users are already on the website, and on twitter, YouTube and tiktok. Those platforms have tools to control the conversation already.
Federated Social Media is a technical solution to a people problem.
> sometimes these responses feel like talking with the MS exec who said that internet search was not needed because people had bookmarks
And likewise, these responses feel like talking with a door to door salesperson. If your only argument is that you can have a worse experience, but be in control of it, you're not going to win the argument.
> The users are already on the website, and on twitter, YouTube and tiktok.
There is a non-negligible number of people who are leaving Twitter and are trying to get rid of Youtube.
> worse experience
Why? Don't give me arguments based on circumstances. Mastodon is not the endgame here. The apps can be improved and content discovery mechanisms can be implemented. What is "fundamentally worse" about federated social media?
Your definition of non-negligible is my definition of insignificant or irrelevant.
I'm still on X, and despite the people I follow declaring they're leaving, it's still the place to be. They all still post.
> Why? Don't give me arguments based on circumstances.
You're the one claiming it's an improvement, the onus is on you to convince me why it's an improved experience. That said, I'm happy to give you my perspective.
Centralised services collect and colocate the information. If I follow the mavericks, i likelt want to be kept up to date with other stuff going with the NBA. Twitter, Instagram, tiktok do that in a way that hundreds of millions of people find valuable. If I want a source of news owned by mavericks, I can visit their website already. That exists, right now, for me to go and look at.
There's the question of "which mark Cuban" - is markcuban@mavs the right one, or markcuban@nba or markcuban@cuban (which has no affiliation to either the NBA, Mark Cuban or the mavericks). X has this (well, it had it and then fucked it), tiktok has this, threads has this solved. If I go and register markcuban@threads, and start posting impersonating mark Cuban, meta will step in (I imagine). You may not want that, but he does, meta does, and millions of people who use their services do.
For services like YouTube, they provide an Audience for NBA fans to show similar content to - you think the NBA doesn't want to get eyeballs from people who are interested in NFL?
And lastly, this is the nail in the coffin:
> The apps can be improved and content discovery mechanisms can be implemented. What is "fundamentally worse" about federated social media?
The fact that the apps are worse and the content discovery mechanisms aren't implemented. That's the magic and value in social media. You get it right, you win (see tiktok). You tweak it and get it wrong, people leave (see Facebook). You don't have it? People stay where they are, because I want to see videos of pandas, otters and frogs with knitted sweaters even though I didn't know I wanted the latter until I saw it.
That's objectively false. Traffic has gone down to the point that they dropped about 10 spots in list of most visited/accessed websites.
> the onus is on you to convince me why it's an improved experience.
On open networks, I have:
- No ads.
- No data tracking.
- No algorithm that promotes content that I do not want to see (fine, Twitter "solved" this by separating the followers from "for you" tabs).
- assurance that I won't be treated as a second class citizen unless I pay for a "blue check"
> There's the question of "which mark Cuban"
This is one of the criticisms that have no root in practical reality. Basically everyone that's left Twitter for Mastodon has written a post saying "here's my new handle". And has any high-profile figure started a conversation with anyone via social media, without any form of previous introduction or method to check their claims?
> you think the NBA doesn't want to get eyeballs from people who are interested in NFL?
Why do you think that wouldn't be possible in a federated/distributed network? Individuals will pull the content to their feeds according to their interests and propagate further to their network. The content might be originated in separate central points, but they end up diffused through the network just the same.
> The fact that the apps are worse and the content discovery mechanisms aren't implemented.
