@fediverse Let’s face it. When talking about the Fediverse, it is very hard to sell interoperability between different types of instances as a major advantage.

  • 🔸Daniele Turra🔸@hachyderm.ioOP
    2·
    8 months ago

    @fediverse The point is that, given the current characteristics and limitations of the Fediverse at large, how should we recommend software to people interred in joining?
    Should we aim to have them use only one software/instance given their interests? i.e. I’m interested in having the most similar experience to Instagram, so I should use ONLY Pixelfed? But what if, like me, I want to have an official presence online and still want to interact with other communities online that are thread-based?

    • Yohan Yuki Xieㆍ사요한・謝雪矢@c.im
      3·
      8 months ago

      @RookieNerd @fediverse

      Do not recommend one software and/or one instance.

      Using your scenario, would you recommend photography instances based on #Mastodon knowing Mastodon only allows up to 4 “attached” images? Not only that, Mastodon will only display 4 images even if there are more than that?

      Or, are you going to recommend #Pixelfed designed for images. Or, maybe #Firefish, #Friendica, #Hubzilla, #Streams, which all allow more than 4 images and will display all the images even if it exceeds their software’s attach limit?

      Quite frankly, in my opinion, with the image display alone, Mastodon is highly not recommended. So, the number of users and instances Mastodon have does not make it the best #Fediverse software, as you have mentioned earlier, “Mastodon is the level of UX other projects should aim to”. It’s not.

      The best approach is we understand what the user needs and suggest to them the appropriate software and instances that will suit their needs.

      Let’s forget about the Fediverse for a while.

      We have to remember that not everyone is on Twitter or Facebook. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who only have an Instagram account. Why? They don’t need Twitter and Facebook.

      In Korea, for example, they have their own culture and platforms for communication Twitter/Facebook-like, so they don’t need those. But many of them have Instagram accounts.

      Now, let’s go back to the Fediverse.

      If those are the users we are reaching out to, then there should be no problem recommending Pixelfed. Because for these target market, their only concern and type of use is to share, well, photos or their latest digital artwork. They don’t care about a Twitter/Facebook-like experience or use.

      That brings us back to the features of #ActivityPub. It is an “added benefit”.

      1. Users who want to follow this content creator can do so using their existing account.

      Okay, you can’t do this with #Lemmy, the last time I checked, however, you can do it with #Kbin. That’s a Lemmy limitation, not the fediverse.

      1. For the content creator who migrated to the fediverse, in particular, Pixelfed in our scenario, they have a greater reach because they’re federated.

      (Extra: You can actually turn Pixelfed into a regular Twitter-like software if you are using the web UI. Although, last time I heard it will be removed eventually.)

      (Extra 2: BookWyrm also allows Twitter-like feeds and interaction, it’s not restricted to just books.)

    • pugo@convo.casa
      1·
      8 months ago

      @RookieNerd

      @fediverse

      >recommend software to people interested in joining?

      What would be more useful is a _reliable_, _independent_ reviewer of currently available software that works within the Fediverse to point people to Something that compares and contrast the different solutions. eg: Voyager v Mastedon v Thorium v Pixelfed.

      #fediverse #software