Brands, businesses, influencers and power users will eventually join the fediverse. Why not embrace them? Its in our best interest to grow the fediverse.

I started a new suite of tools in June to support them. It was created with privacy in mind, you will only see public data insights and stats. Any user will be able to use this feature. After federation support is finished I will focus on this again!


> Its in our best interest to grow the fediverse.

This is not automatically a truism. (But it's also not a point I'm looking to discuss, either.)

> public data insights

I'd be quite interested to know how to opt out of that dataset if possible. (With the understanding that "make your profile private" is my assumed only option, and the hope that there is something more elegant and considerate that this suite of privacy-minded tools provides.)


@sydneyfalk The fediverse was created for everyone, that being said I believe you can strike a balance by offering tools to give users more power over what content they see, privacy and reporting tools.

The public data insights is stuff like graphs of new followers over a period of time, most recent mentions and other features that are already present. Its meant to make it easy to organize interactions compared to a single notification feed.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 1
@dansup @sydneyfalk I'd also want to not be included in any follower statistics. This type of gamification which helps celebs or SEO type people maximize their engagement is a bad idea, since it encourages people to chase numbers instead of cultivating real relationships. We can see the bad effects of this on Twitter, and in my opinion the fediverse should not be trying to reproduce Twitter-like habits and practices.

@bob While not required by the AP spec, have you ever seen an AP social media implementation without follower counts? Statistics is just plotting information already available via an API and notifications. You can perform exactly what Deck does via a 3rd party client.

@dansup @bob I think this is a very interesting discussion. Just because we _can_, should we really do it? There are choices we can make to create a less competitive and more social space for people to enjoy. Just because there are statistics everywhere doesn't mean we have to buy into that paradigm. Just because classes in society exist today doesn't mean we need to maintain such a social order for all future.

@mmn @dansup @bob I think there's a difference between letting 3rd parties build tools vs. building them yourself and packaging them in by default.

For example. some vain Instagram users download apps that show graphs of follows, unfollows, etc. But users have to seek those out and developers have to build those. Should the pixelfed project's official stance be to enable or encourage that use case? Implementation and design will matter.

@mmn @dansup @bob If it's just scheduling posts or filtering notifications, then why not make those features available to all users?

@mmn @dansup @bob Statistics, used the right way helps us understand. I agree that it should if possible not be used for vanity or competition.

@shellkr @dansup @mmn

I'd rather opt out of being in the statistics. I don't want to be part of someone's Big Data project or a politician's statistical quote. Having your social activity aggregated into statistics without consent is what the silo systems do.

Things like number of users, or number of active users is ok, but profiling users and aggregating them into categories is something I'd rather avoid.

@bob @dansup @mmn It is not Big Data if it is you looking at your own data. Big Data is about finding commonality among millions of users. That is different. How I think about this would be about a single user. You. Where some of it might also work publicly.

@bob @dansup @sydneyfalk Gamification is not an automatic bad. It is a great motivator and can be used to motivate good behavior. Maybe there is a way to use it for motivating cultivation of real relationships?

One thing would perhaps be motivating higher activity. Participation leads to more relationships being made. Which is also something social org's which from their members. A common trick is to offer free coffee for instance.


> first paragraph

This doesn't seem like a very concrete statement, but for some values of all those things, I suppose they're true.

> second paragraph

So it sounds like nameless data; opting out of that would still be ideal but it's far less worrying.

Is it nameless data (i.e. aggregated and sanitized, like follower count changes over time or such)?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

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!