Follow

Do not understand why anyone would ever boost one of those cross-posted tweets that has the "RT" text and Twitter links in them.

To be fair I also do not understand why anyone would ever want those cross-posts to exist like that, either.

I have specifically qualified my statement to cross-posts that include the "RT" text and all sorts of broken references to avoid "not all cross-posts" responses, but I still got them. Okay then.

Unsurprisingly, I indeed believe that Mastodon is better than Twitter, and prefer seeing posts created here over posts created somewhere else.

I also think that the ability to cross-post from Twitter works against Mastodon adoption.

"Ability to cross-post from Twitter works against Mastodon adoption"

My thesis on this is simple. People choose the easiest path. If the destination is "try Mastodon", one path is "log on and use Mastodon" and the other is "set an automated cross-poster, keep using Twitter". So, people who might have otherwise committed to using Mastodon, for there not being another option to "get on it", now have the option not to.

I have observed this trend before and after the cross-poster became available.

@Gargron They are too scared to be away from twitter, so they use this to feel "better"

@Ytrezar @Gargron That or they're stuck on there for other reasons, like business.

@Gargron because theyre funny posts and i want to share them with my followers

@Gargron I boost meaningful and insightful tweets regardless of their origin.

@Gargron This. I do crosspost—but 'regular' toots only—the other way around, though, 'cause of the literally three people on Twitter I still talk to. Just can't seem to convince them to create a Mastodon account...

@Gargron As long as Twitter does not integrate into the feediverse, this is the only way to retoot its content.
I think, we should not condemn retoots just because their content comes from Twitter. If the content is good, I don't mind using/reading those kind of retoots.

@Gargron Es gibt sehr gute Gründe diese zu tun.

Etliche Leute benutzen Twitter und Mastodon nebeneinander.
Wenn ich einen Tweet auf Twitter sehe, will ich den retweeten.
Wenn ich den inhaltlich gut finde, warum sollte ich ihn dann aber nicht auch auf Mastodon teilen?
Was mache ich dann? Zu Fuß kopieren und manuell die Referenz setzen?
(Und umgekehrt.)

Nein, ich baue mir eine Sync-Brücke, die nach möglichst treffenden Regeln die Inhalte nach links oder rechts pushed.

Klingt für mich plausibel.

@Gargron It would be useful to make @example@twitter.com mentions actually link to the Twitter profile in question...

But I'm guessing that won't happen. :blobunsure:

@lychee Client applications can make mentions in any "Social network", including , link to any place. However, Mastodon controls existence of such mentions, unfortunately... and Web interface.

@Gargron I'd say it has to do with people finding it hard to fully migrate from Twitter, trying to find a way to be in both places at once.

@MirceaKitsune I have nothing against Twitter receiving cross-posts from us.

@Gargron as someone who does still use Twitter (as many people don’t are not on the fediverse yet) and uses a bridge, I don’t understand why there’s not better tools to cross-post.

I do like @crossposter, and don’t really expect people to manually post to two networks. If we want to help the next magnitude of people to migrate, it needs to be very easy _and_ integrated to first just set up a profile to crosspost to test the waters.

@jancborchardt @crossposter There is Postybirb, a desktop client that lets you post to multiple platforms at once, including Twitter and Mastodon.

I don't know what you imagine as even more integration, with Twitter closing down API access the less we depend on it, the better.

@Gargron yeah, even more integration is of course difficult with the API limits and the need to invest resources in the first place. :\ I’m not sure either.

The point is that most people don’t want to spend a lot of time with setting up tech. Needing to configure a 3rd-party bridge or installing a separate app is a higher barrier.

I don’t necessarily have a solution, but we should understand people’s situations and keep it in mind.

@Gargron Totally agree. Mastodon is heads down better than the the bird site.

Twitter is a terrible echo chamber with little original content. A lot of people shouting down other people. Like a verbal wrestling match.

Long live Mastodon :)

@Gargron i think the ability to cross post helps people to continue displaying their support for a morally bankrupt company whose primary mission is to provide an ad scamming platform for jerks

@Gargron What if people choose to post on the first, and cross-post to Twitter?

@rubdos That works towards fediverse adoption. I have been talking about a specific direction.

@Gargron
The social network game is all about get notice.
And change habits is hard.

@biriguifrito
I personally prefer the social protocols that exist within Mastodon. Bringing here the same spirit that has been prolific on Twitter would have a very negative impact on our experience here.

@gargron The problem in this, again and again, is: Choosing a "social network", messenger, ... isn't something an individual can do on her/his/its own. Usually you're wired with a certain community, and the larger it is, the more difficult moving from one network to another will be. Personally, I don't want cross-posting features at all - I *just* want to connect to my contacts and interact with them seamlessly, I do not want to have to care about which platform they are on. Look ...

@z428

@Gargron

"They" works fine as a neutral pronoun btw.

Also, you're basically saying you want crossposting. Either that, or one social network to rule them all. Which would be against the nature of the internet.

@transwarp Well ... I don't want crossposting that is visible as such. I'd rather like to communicate with people as transparently as possible without having to think about which network they're on, no matter whether this is Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Diaspora or Movim. 😉
@gargron

@z428

That's still crossposting. The only difference is aesthetics. No convenience would be worth what we would lose. The diversity of the internet is what makes it worthwhile. It would be a nightmare as far as harassment. Being able to mass-post across any & all sites with one click would make having distinct sites pointless. It would mean a homogenized internet which would lend itself to corporations/gov't controlling it all. It's against the spirit of the internet.

@transwarp I think that restrictions on crosspostings, if any, shouldn't be set to a source/originating system/client application. They should be set on authenticated users, on behalf of whom these crosspostings are done.
@z428 @ZeniorXV @Gargron

@gargron ... at it from another point of view: Many of us have been blaming Facebook and Twitter to be "walled gardens" and "data silos" - for pretty good reasons as it's hardly possible to communicate with users "inside" if you're "outside". Shouldn't we do better and rather try to eliminate "inside" and "outside" altogether? 😉

@z428
you can't.. since those outside refuse the federation. it's not fault, design or architecture. those making it impossible to talk to wherever your friends are, are the closed gardens, not the fediverse.
what could Mastodon do more than allowing the remapping of the "public square" on the open web fediverse?
it's up to other closed gardens to open the gates.
@Gargron

@benborges Yes, I don't disagree - it's about others to open the gates, but it's about us to make sure we don't have walls or gates at all to begin with. And, from a certain point, focussing on ActivityPub as the *only* federated protocol might be a wall/gate as well ... 😉

@gargron

@z428 @Gargron I disagree on the bit, that's the same of saying : we should not use all the same email protocol cos it will give pop3/imap a monopoly on email delivery. Protocols are what makes the web inter-operable, hence & fediverse could comment on each others posts simply by adopting the protocol; anyone is free to make a new interface for it as long as it abide to the protocol, that's why the web still works right ?

@benborges Difficult. I tend to agree but then again, unlike e-mail or HTTP (where essentially the same protocols have been in use for like three decades), open social networks have been pretty much about re-implementing similar ideas in different, incompatible protocols ever since. That's why, right now, Diaspora, the fediverse, Movim, .... seem like "open silos" that hardly play together.
@gargron

@z428 @Gargron well some protocol will win over the others right ? in theory the one that brings most features, security, stability and open source..I think at some point it will be impossible for Diaspora & others to avoid it much longer..the benefits of joining the fediverse will outpace technological concept purity and I think in this case it can't hurt the ecosystem...

@benborges Again, I don't disagree, but just imagine the time same would have happened with e-mail or web. 😉 Not arguing against evolution in protocols, but so far pretty often it feels just like people implement breaking protocols while considering compatibility to other existing similar protocols someone elses problem.
@gargron

@z428 @Gargron I guess the big difference with is 1) it comes from a W3C working group that improved the specs basing itself on the state of previous similar protocol (statusnet, OStatus) 2) Diaspora founder seems to like it : medium.com/we-distribute/a-qui maybe the future is going to bring new shiny good news on this aspect, I think there is high chance to see this happening, it will have its own network effect

@z428 I may be biased, I'm fully aware that my blog (withKnown based) and my usage depends on and I like it this way, I don't think it's a bad bet even in the very long run :)

@z428 diaspora, movim, and activitypub also deal with different use cases, though!
- movim is an extension of xmpp status/mood, and is intended to build on personal messaging with your contacts.
- diaspora has never focused on compatibility, and has doggedly stuck to their own protocol because their entire sharing model is reversed; it's not a follower model.
- activitypub is a web technology meant to link together disparate streams of data
@benborges @Gargron

@trwnh These however seem more like different technical approaches. I doubt the actual *use cases* (as in what end users do with the system) really differ between these networks. From that point of view, in example mastodon and peertube seem way more different in use case and target group than mastodon and movim ...?
@benborges @gargron

@z428 disagree. mastodon and peertube are both fundamentally web sites, passing web documents around. a profile on a web site is a 1-many service. movim is... not that.

if you simplify the use case to "communication" then you end up ignoring the intricacies of how people actually use each system. for example, it is possible to implement a chat service entirely within activitypub, but *should* you? that's a lot of overhead for transient use cases. @benborges @Gargron

@trwnh For what I see, mastodon is more of a (micro)blogging platform focussed on smaller text messages whereas peertube is an environment for hosting video clips. Movim is closer to Facebook or Diaspora (longer posts, embedded online chat). That's the level of abstraction I had in mind, even tough on a "lower" level I agree with you.
@benborges @gargron

@z428 Even on a higher level, I wouldn't say that IRC and XMPP serve the same use case at all. You wouldn't join a chat room and expect private communication, in the same way that you wouldn't expect private communication on a publishing network. In that sense, Peertube and Mastodon both serve a "publishing documents to a stream" use case.

Whether the ultimate payload is a text document or a video document is irrelevant to the fundamental use case. @benborges @Gargron

@trwnh Maybe it's a filter bubble issue; at least in my environment, real "end users" don't even think about making a distinction between "communication" and "publishing" network, same as (in Facebook, in example), borders between posting articles, commenting articles, forwarding articles as private messages and entirely message-driven communication are fuzzy if existent at all. From that point of view, it seems of no real importance whether there's something like ...

@benborges @gargron

@trwnh ... Movim (basically a communication / chat system with publishing features bolted on top) or Diaspora (a publishing system with messaging and chat added to the mix) or something like Mastodon (which might be in between somewhere). It won't matter, either, whether chat or publishing is first, whether chat is activitypub or XMPP or anything else. That's just *how* use cases are implemented, not *what* use cases are about.

@benborges @gargron

@z428 My point is less about the "how"/"why" and moreso that the protocol diversity is a direct result of use-case diversity. The Diaspora protocol was built with reverse-sharing in mind. Movim is an extension of a protocol that was built with 1-1 chatting in mind. IRC was built with live rooms in mind. ActivityPub was built to be a very general protocol for sharing data between websites. The stuff that gets built on top of those protocols can't really be built on just one protocol.

@z428 So it's not about what came first or which was bolted onto which, but rather, which use cases are naturally supported? Note that ActivityPub is currently having issues with identity management and with encryption schemes, because it was built for web servers; you can consider ActivityPub a poor base for a 1-1 chat system.

Facebook is a bad example because it's the Everything Network. It bolts together disparate experiences like chatting and posting -- and it still used XMPP for chat.

@trwnh Yes, but actually the "Everything Network" is exactly my point and (as far as I see things here) pretty much what mere end users expect, assuming the "all-in" approach makes for a rather seamless experience. That's why, in example, I see there should be tight collaboration between Movim / XMPP people and AP folks (because there might be synergies in the publishing fields, and XMPP definitely can manage the 1-1 or conference chat system). Right now, there are too many technical ...

@trwnh ... borders and apparently too few approaches to actually unify these things to come up with something that, to an end user, provides an experience on par with or even better than Facebook and *still* is less "silo" and less privacy-invading.

@z428 Even if you simplify everything and say "OK, no redundant protocols", you still end up with stuff that can't be done entirely within any one protocol, and you still end up with overlaps. SMTP and XMPP can both coexist because emailing and chatting are sufficiently different use cases despite being fundamentally the exact same (sharing text with attachments to your contacts). Should SMTP be deprecated, and should email servers implement XMPP instead?

@trwnh Honest answer? I don't really care. What I see, right now, is that more and more people give up on both e-mail and all "other" chat solutions, especially for the day-to-day internal communication, and rely upon platforms such as Slack that seem to bring "best of both worlds" and even have a fully searchable "eternal archive". For many use cases, something like Slack or XMPP with a "transparent bridge" to include external contacts via then-legacy protocols (like SMTP) might be ...

@trwnh ... a perfectly fine choice. I don't per se want to argue for or against any particular protocol, but what I see in day-to-day life (Slack, Google Apps for Business, Apple Cloud...) is that more and more users actually don't care much about protocols and want an integrated solution instead, just like web-based GMail that also includes live chat and even video conferencing at a fingertip in a homogenous UI. If we need different protocols for that - fine. But at times I wonder ...

@trwnh ... whether the "open community" lacks sort of a vision to get all these things together in a homogenous, seamless, structured way without building yet another silo.

@z428 Now we're talking about the app level and not the protocol level. The GMail webapp still uses multiple protocols; it's more akin to having a GTalk pane next to your GMail pane. Likewise, you can build an email client that had XMPP chat embedded in the side (e.g. Thunderbird, Evolution, eM Client, and so on).

I wouldn't call either part of that an "open silo". Even then, the only "silo" aspect is in incompatible data representations -- you can still build a converter or bridge as you said.

Show more
Show more
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!