You only need to look at the many BlueSky posts here to see that many people view BlueSky as an attack on federation. It’s only natural to see people on Mastodon shitting on BlueSky for taking what they see as their success away from them.

Because none of those points matter to the average user.

It surprises me a little, because on some instances there seems to be a lot of power users/tech influencer types, but not a lot of engagement between smaller accounts. Active users is around 1 in 12, which is again higher than expected, so maybe it’s just me/Hackyderm?

Several reasons:

• Mastodon is REALLY unfriendly from a UX perspective. To many, federation is a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist for them. In their mind, the early model of federation is like email, a problem that was “solved” years ago by having one corporate product that was much better than others (Gmail).
• Reiterating, why should people care about the fediverse?
• The fediverse is lacking the user numbers, and those that do post don’t really interact with others. Spend some time with the newhere tag and you’ll see a lot of people that make the occasional post, send a lot of replies, and end up leaving because that engagement ends up with maybe 2 followers. It’s rather clique-y.
• Some fediverse sites (e.g. Lemmy) have bad reputations, and Mastodon partly suffers from this. Outside of tech, where people argue with each other all the time anyway, there isn’t really anything worthwhile being posted.

Generally speaking, how is Mastodon any better than Bluesky? How is Lemmy any better than Reddit? If you can’t answer that in a way the average person gives a fuck about, what’s the argument for using them?

I switched from .local to .honk and I’m never looking back.

I don’t want Lemmy to go after Reddit. I want it to be its own thing.

With that being said, more users would mean having some living communities. Some major communities on lemmy.world like videos are hilariously empty, probably less so than small, local subreddits.

Web3 is a thing in the same way that the Semantic Web was a thing - it wasn’t.

The same goes for federation. There isn’t a single leading service, and until it is a proven idea that the whole web leans towards, it’s just a theory or a grift.

How about you fuckers stop grifting buzzwords?

Until there is an actual shift towards any form of federation, where it becomes the standard for the web, the web is still basically what it’s been for many years. Web3 is bullshit, and trying to lump federation in with it is a fast-track towards shitting over any benefits that it might have to people.

Given that we’ve watched communities like Reddit become more closed, I would rather Lemmy not do the same. The best thing an instance can do is keep them on a very tight leash, and kick out at the first sign of a rule being broken.

What Lemmy needs, above anything, is engagement. Be open to the users from Threads, instead of punishing them because you hate Meta. Many people joined Lemmy because the idea of the fediverse meant freedom to choose, and while instances are free to allow/deny who they want, it shouldn’t be a detriment to users that want to experience Lemmy.

To be fair, Microsoft didn’t invent this, they only showed that it could be implemented in the tech industry. To some extent, basically every big tech company does this now.

I’ve regrettably only heard of Podman in passing. At work we use docker containers with kubernetes, is this something we could easily transition to without friction?

While to some extent that is true, where it always falls apart is in what tangible benefit this provides to the user. Federation is cool, and there are benefits in terms of moderation, but to the average person the difference between centralised and federated tools is usually that the federated tool has far fewer users/engagement. It’s the same for web3, in that the shills are selling something no one actually wants or can really benefit from.

Wasn’t that slightly different, in that people were referring to Web 2.0 as the rise in dynamic content, and interactive web pages/applications?

Does it? I remember Web 2.0 being a thing many years ago, but the only time I see web2 mentioned is either around social media or to describe “the old web” - both only used to shill web3 as “the future”.

Is “web2” a thing? I’ve only ever heard it used by web3 shills, and never outside of Twitter or LinkedIn.