What happens once I have more followers than Lance Ulanoff has on Twitter?
He concluced his article (titled "Mastodon will never be the next Twitter") with this:
"I suspect thousands of other Tooters (blech!) will soon do the same and Mastodon will lay down beside all other other fossilized social media platforms and fade from existence."
Since then, Mastodon grew to 1,300,000 users and 2,000 servers. This is why people bring him up today.
I've thought of Mastodon as semi-public broadcasting, since without a topic hashtags there's much greater challenge to mining through old information.
As such, it doesn't enable one of the (vacuous) indulgences of mainstream culture: scandal, & the quote-mining of old posts for scandal.
The audience who find Twitter appealing for this (and the celebrities for make their brand off of such drama) won't exactly see Mastodon's part of the fediverse as an alternative.
I only bring this up, as Twitter has purpose built features for celebrities (the blue tick for authentication & a blue-tick-to-blue-tick only mode I believe) and quote mining (the advanced search is rather more sophisticated than I expected it to be when I first saw it).
Their current size is a result of deliberate efforts to tie a scandal engine to an attention economy.
The point is not that every single person needs to make an instance. As it stands, anyone who wants to has the capability. You could be obtuse or you could learn about the functionality of mastodon. Or I guess you could just go back to birdsite since you seem to have such a problem with Mastodon.
Not a problem with GNUSocial (it's all the same shit) just a problem with badmins who think it in the interest those who are directly affected by their choices to callously use things like full domain suspension at the first sign of a percieved bad interaction.
What you think GNUSocial should be and what I believe It should be are two VASTLY different things it seems.
You don't teach a child to use a loaded handgun by having them point it at their little skull do you? No. You teach them how to properly and safely handle a firearm. You teach them to never point it at something they don't intend to destroy or kill. You teach them how to use it, but instill that such a tool is a last resort if all else fails.
They can try, but if their intention is to become even more enclosed and locked away in their echo chamber, they'll eventually find themselves the darkest of places, Boredom. That's what's slowly happening to poopbird, a virtual strip mall of corporate advertisments and the the same figureheads touting the same nonsense they always do.
Never forget you're just as prone to groupthink as the people you decry as sheep. Refusing to accept other ideas because you deem them Stupid or whatever word you want to use for it is just the same as blocking the idea from reaching you entirely. /shrug
@InkAndCircuits @mirzaba @Gargron
The whole blacklisting people on Twitter backfired spectacularly at least once in my knowledge. The Altfurry blocklist. A blocklist that contained any furry that had the wrong opinions, regardless if they were a minority, supremacist, or just a gay doggo on the internet that plays video games (justrags)
@fexel @gargron @InkAndCircuits
You know block lists exist on birdsite too right? And many other sites. Why are you so fixated on how it pertains to Mastodon, and not, you know, the notion itself. And on that note, you're enlightened and smart right? Use those skills to find out why people use blocklists in the first place
I'm going to say as clearly as I can; on this topic, I do think Fexel has a valid point.
The admins are not entirely decentralised the way the instances are. If a popularity contest begins, cabals effectively become a gatekeeper.
Admins of different instances acting as an in-group & either valuing the cohesion of the admin in-group/fearing banishment because of pressure from those outside of their instance does stand a real chance of fracturing the federation.
I will point out, I never commented on a likely outcome, or even the odds of this happening.
Simply that the decentralised structure of the hardware and software doesn't affect the interpersonal relationships and group dynamics of the instances.
Also, Fexel, for what it's worth, I think the wolf/sheep metaphor is too easily interpreted as either value judgement on roles or an interpretation of an Aesop's Fable I don't grasp. I don't think it helps explain your view.
It's that very type of behavior that's caused people with agency to look towards alternative media sources instead of big name MSM companies. These people look for honesty and truth, not agendas to keep people in the dark.
#Cryptocurrency are not dead.
Because it waste #energy that would have better uses.
And you know... energy costs is going to grow.. and grow... and grow... as the Earth's resources finish.
You might get some profit by speculation, but I don't think it's a moral profit. Nor a moral technology, in our resource constrained world.
Blockchains are a linked list containing the hash of the current block's data and the hash of the previous block's data forming a cryptographic chain; it uses storage not (much) energy.
Proof-of-Work is a protocol feature (which uses a lot of energy) for which there are alternatives: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-alternative-strategies-for-proof-of-work
You should read that link more carefully.
> To date, all proof of burn cryptocurrencies work by burning proof-of-work-mined cryptocurrencies
> Because creating forks is costless when you aren't burning an external resource Proof of Stake alone is considered to an unworkable consensus mechanism.
Also, the Proof-of-Work is an hash included in the blockchain, distributed and checked by miners.
@Gargron Is the number "1,300,000 users" means *registered* users? I remember from your Medium post that "Over 130,000 people were active on Mastodon last week," which I interpreted as 130,000 *active* users.
Just confused because two numbers looked similar (but, of course, vastly different in magnitude.)
True. The main difference between Mastodon and other decentrlized aocial networks is that Mastodon is actually picking up stream. Most of the others fizzled out with a small number of users.
Personally, I think the prior ones arrived at a bad time. When #Diaspora was at its most popular, Facebook was a media darling and information about PRISM had yet to reach the public. It faded because there was no "push" away from corporate-controlled social media.
Mastodon is maturing in an environment in which everyone is aware of government spying, Russian election meddling, and scandals involving the abuse of social media account holders' personal information. In that environment, people seek something new and different.
Before the Russia/Cambridge Analytica scandals, it would have been easy to see Mastodon going the way of Diaspora. Those events changed the game. Hopefully, more people will see the benefits of decentralization.