- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Unfortunately email is likely the only federated network most people will know and be routinely exposed to. As such, it is the best way to describe what a federated network is. I describe the Fediverse something like such:
"Think about emails. There are loads of different providers (Gmail, outlook, Yahoo, etc.), each with their own web pages, their own email servers, etc… But when you email someone else it doesn’t matter what email provider they use, as long as you have their address, you can email them (assuming they haven’t blocked you).
That’s because emails are federated - every email provider sends emails the same way, using the same underlying language (or “protocol”).
It’s like how different parts of England or the US have way different accents, but because they’re all speaking English, you’ll generally understand what’s being said.
Now imagine instead email providers, you had loads of little twitters doing the same thing. You could make a post and it gets sent out to all your followers, etc. no matter what little Twitter they’re following you on. That’s what Mastodon is - it’s loads of little twitters in a trenchcoat.
Now imagine you did that for Facebook Groups [or Reddit if they’re savvy enough]. Loads of little Facebooks where you could make groups and post, and people could join and view these posts regardless of what little Facebook they’re on. That’s what Lemmy is [or Kbin for the cool kids].
Everything on the Fediverse works like that. You have loads of little providers (instances), which all talk using the same underlying protocols (based on a protocol called ActivityPub), and act as one big interconnected web of social media."
It’s a bit long winded, but it’s simple and doesn’t overwhelm with jargon. If they know what emails are, you can explain this to them…
I struggle to see another pathway in, because as I said before, most people aren’t exposed to literally any other form of federation. Emails are to federation what Pandas are to Wildlife conservation.
Maybe calling an instance a fediverse providors might help bridge the gap?
So email can work with multiple providers because they all speak the same federated language. Gmail can talk to yahoo can talk to outlook can talk to thunderbird etc etc
And Mastadon can talk to Lemmy can talk to peertube can talk to threads and on and on.
They can’t talk to each other normally because they speak different languages (email protocol and the fediverse protocol).
That’s why I use the “little providers” wording. Most people using email will know, or at least have an idea of, what an email provider is because they had to sign up with one to have said email. It translates easier when trying to teach people what an instance even is.
I don’t tend to go as advanced as mentioning that the different Fediverse socials can technically talk to one another (due to all running off ActivityPub). I feel like that just adds a layer of confusion for someone learning, for a feature they may very well not use.
Normally, unless you’re insane enough to build a bridge to make that work.
Though if the person I was teaching asked, I’d just say no hahaBridging is best honestly. I love it!
I’ve never a post with more than a thousand upvotes on lemmy until yesterday.
But have you completely missed writing a whole word before?
Fun fact: my comment was actually missing 5 words.
It still has ~500 upvotes though?
Yeah, not this post. I mean in general on lemmy
I assume they’re talking about a different post.
Eventually an email to fediverse gateway will be a thing.
I thought you meant Gateway, like we’d all be on the same k8s instance behind a proxy, and I was ready to start ranting, but then I used my brain and realised you were speaking English
I mean that is literally my dream. After some self hosting things I actually kind of want to try that myself. What would be really neet is to see what UIs could share the same backends!
Something like an RSS feed that sends automatically to your inbox?
Google groups: gather round laddies!
Using Lemmy is nothing at all like sending an email, this analogy needs to stop. Don’t overwhelm people with jargon, just say there are different servers that interact with one another or something.
Call it a framework for social media sites that are all interconnected.
It is like an internet within the internet.
Saying framework instantly would shut off my family members brain.
its similar in the sense that its decentralized. which is otherwise foreign to many.
I honestly don’t like the email analogy. I mean, there are no email servers that are defederated or something. “Why don’t you answer my mails?” “Oh, you have a gmail adress? That’s banned on my instance, sorry, not my fault.”
But until I find a better one, I will continue using it.
Sounds like federation could solve spam!
J/k
Email domains regularly block specific email servers or even servers based on location. That is how the vast, vast majority of spam from foreign countries is blocked.
That is the same concept as defederation.
That is literally a thing you know… gmail won’t accept email from some servers unless they follow some specific, ever-changing standards. It’s just that gmail is one of the largest providers, so people jump through major hoops to ensure that they accept emails from them.
I honestly don’t like the email analogy. I mean, there are no email servers that are defederated or something.
Here is a list to defederate with some email servers : https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/spamhaus-blocklist/
The email analogy is bad and needs to end. People hear email and think it’s like email, they don’t hear the technical how-it-works.
People don’t need to know the inner workings to use it. Just tell them it’s social media. If you need more, say it’s lots of different servers that talk to each other.
I agree with you 100% and have made the same argument elsewhere. You’ve done a good job explaining and defending it. I usually just tell people it’s like reddit but not owned by one company. People who don’t really know what a server is can understand the appeal of that.
The email comparison is good, if you focus on what is actually being compared and not anything else about emails.
That’s the exact problem, people think about emails. You know, addresses and inbox and CC. They don’t focus on or know or understand the technical comparison. They’ve never had to think about it before. I’s the exact wrong way to try to introduce them to fediverse. Don’t even say fediverse, just say Lemmy or whatever else.
The fediverse is like how you can send an email from your work to your personal account because the two email servers have a way to talk to each other. It isn’t like Facebook or Instagram where you can only send messages to people on the same platform.
How is that not a good analogy?
Ok I’ve explained this twice, so this will be my last attempt. Because people hear the word “email” and upon hearing the word “email” they, wait for it, think it’s email. You know, the email they’ve used for 20 years. Once they hear the word “email” they stop hearing anything else. They heard the word “email” and have automatically filled in the rest with their experiences of typing “dear madam blah blah blah best regards” and CC this person so they can see it. They have filled it in with their user experience. They have never thought about the inner workings of email with servers or intercommunication.
People do not need to know about the inner workings of email or lemmy in order to use them. Trying to explain the inner workings before they even start is entirely unnecessary. And trying to explain with a different service like email is even worse, well because of what I wrote above. It confuses them.
A comparison isn’t bad just because some people have trouble with listening to the end of a sentence.
The explanation is bad. When you lead people into things that you really should know they will automatically fill in with their prior experiences.
That is true of absolutely every comparison.
The analogy certainly worked for me when I first read up on it. “Oh, different servers speaking the same language so they can communicate even though they’re separate entities”.
I imagine the only people who are really confused by it are the ones who simply cannot grasp analogies in general.
There sure are a lot of people who are focused on everything except the actual comparison.
If someone said that Diet Coke and Diet Sprite tasted awful because they both have artificial sweetners they would just argue that the comparison is confusing because Coke is a dark color and Sprite is clear!
Those are both carbonated sodas though, they perform largely the same function. Unlike email vs social media, which perform entirely different roles.
OMG, you can’t just compare two colors of soda!
Because you’re not sending messages to other people, you’re posting on an open forum. The user experience is totally different to email.
Focus on everything except the actual comparison challenge successful!
A lot of people in this thread have never had to explain some piece of tech to someone who doesn’t really get technology, and it shows. Your explanation would just confuse most people.
So don’t explain anything at all ever. Gotcha.
Because it explains the stuff regular users don’t care about.
Why would they care which server has the content they want to see? They don’t do so now. They just want the content.
Call it a free social media with no ads or algorithms. And you will get a much better response.
It’s an apt analogy - that’s why it keeps being used. Anyone can run their own email server, and federate by accepting emails from other email servers.
“The Fediverse” is just reinventing the wheel. It’s basically just publicly viewable email. You are grandma from 1997 and the email that showed up as “FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Thought you might find this funny!”
The problem is people think it’s email. I don’t blame them, they hear the word email and they think email.
They don’t think or hear the technical explanation and workings of: “Anyone can run their own email server, and federate by accepting emails from other email servers.” It’s not how the vast, vast majority of people work.
Why do they need to? We hide the technical and inner workings of most things, because half the population is too stupid to understand it. It doesn’t mean they can’t use it. Look at lemmy for instance. I’d be willing to bet 99% of the people here couldn’t set up a lemmy instance for themselves.
??? That’s exactly what I’m saying. We don’t need to explain the inner workings with comparisons to email. Just tell them to browse or make an account.
But people need something to compare it to. They don’t know why the fediverse is something they should want.
The email comparison is to explain that they can participate anywhere, it’s not to fundamentally portray the inner workings of it; but just to approximate it on a surface level.
Kind of like saying “Facebook is kinda like Myspace”…it wasn’t Myspace, and we’re not asking people understand the technical differences, but there has to be some sort of starting-off point.
I explain to people that it’s like Twitter, but if twitter acted like email where you could sign up with any provider.
Tell them it’s Social media. That’s the comparison they need. For why they might want it: it’s not controlled by a corporation.
Ok the confusion may be that what you think is surface level is the inner working. Surface level to normal people is the user interface. The surface level of Lemmy for instance is it’s like social media. Just like the surface level of emails is “dear sir blah blah blah regards” and cc this person. You say email and they think of that surface level. Talking about how it works with intercommunication between instances like email intercommunicates is literally the inner working. And leads to the exact content of the tweet, you should reread it. Ok I’m just repeating myself so that I’m out.
Signing up is the first interaction you have; thus my opinion that it’s surface-level.
Except it’s nothing whatsoever like email, and you’re just confusing people.
Okay, it’s like a mailing list over email.
What you say in the Fediverse echoes everywhere else that is federated. Pick an instance you like and have fun.
If they’re that stupid they can stay out. I’m okay with a barrier to entry.
The real question is why does threads even have users ? Like who is the target audience ?
The only people out in the wild I’ve heard mention Threads, were of boomer age.
Shouldn’t boomers be on facebook or trying to ruin insta for the young ? Like threads do have better alternatives as it is the one of those time when zuck was kinda late with it.
Maybe Meta is pushing Threads heavily to the Facebook userbase. I’m uncertain, because I do not use either.
They seem to push it harder on Instagram from what I’ve seen
Yeah sounds like somethin zuck would do for sure.
Lmao Lemmy is sometimes so out of touch
I’m still trying to figure that out. I’ve racked my brain but cannot come up with a solution. Time to turn to AI.
Google Gemini Advanced
Threads, the Instagram-connected messaging app, has a few key target user groups:
Users seeking a more focused social experience: Threads caters to people who want a way to stay closely connected with their close friends and family, without the distractions of a broader social network. Instagram power users: Threads is heavily integrated with Instagram. Users who actively engage on the platform (sharing Stories, responding to polls, etc.) are natural candidates for Threads, where they can extend those interactions. Younger demographics (Gen Z): Gen Z is highly active on Instagram and tends to be drawn towards new and experimental social media experiences. Threads appeals to this group as well. Privacy-conscious individuals: Threads offers more control over who sees your messages and activity compared to broader platforms like Twitter. This attracts those who value a more private social environment. Early adopters: People who enjoy trying out new apps and technologies often gravitate toward platforms like Threads. Here’s why these groups are a good fit for Threads:
Focused communication: Threads emphasizes streamlined communication with close friends, offering features like quick status updates and easy sharing of photos and videos. Instagram integration: If someone is already invested in Instagram, Threads is a natural extension for deeper connections with their inner circle. Youth appeal: Gen Z values authentic, in-the-moment communication styles. Threads fits well with this preference. Privacy emphasis: Threads allows users to curate their “Close Friends” list and provides extra control over who sees their content.
Also i just realised you are posting the screenshot of your own post
Correct.
Privacy-conscious individuals
Yeah no . No one is there with privacy in mind.
Casual Twitter users who left twitter after Musk took over but aren’t thinking all that hard about what it was specifically that Musk brings to the table that creates the problems. They just see someone else made a Twitter alike, and they already have an Instagram account, so they give it a shot.
All they know is the people they liked on twitter are gone, but that there were elements of the Twitter experience they liked
Why don’t they go to Mastodon or Blue Sky?
deleted by creator
Advertisment on other Meta platforms.
I think someone did make a proxy or something to interact with fedi through email, so, technically, yes, you can fediverse with your gmails
But can the Fediverse run Doom?
I know it cannot, at this time, run Crysis.
This is why integrating with threads is kind of important… Their user base is massive compared to Lemmy and increasing knowledge of the fediverse is important.
Otherwise you just end up with Lemmy and very little growth.
If the added userbase is shitty then the growth is counterproductive.
There’s already shitty people on Lemmy and the like… We’re not some special elite, there’s dumbasses and people with ridiculous views here as well.
Currently the ratio of good to bad is better than Facebook, and focusing on growth will make it worse.
It’s always a balance between a few things.
- It will always become shit at some point and no longer feasible. It’s impossible for it to be great for any amount of time.
- At the moment it’s tiny and the quality and discussion can be pretty poor. It would benefit from growth in my opinion as atm it can be an echo chamber of “Linux good, Windows bad lol” which is a dumb take. Or in other places it’s just empty, you have no community in most areas.
- Vs. Bringing in everyone all at once which would make it pretty crap instantly. Although I don’t think that’s what Threads has done.
Ironiy, shit like Facebook and Twitter are closer the the dark web what with not being available without a user account and being hubs for illicit activities. Do you think the boomers would have been able to organize January 6th without the Facebook algorithm introducing them to each other?
They literally are the deep web, and places of it can get pretty dark. But usually dark web refers to non-clearnet sites
You explain it to normies by saying it’s a link aggregator and discussion site and microblogger, like R/T. What they are really asking for, however, isn’t a rundown of federation mechanisms but a rationale for the fed itself. ‘How does it work?’ really means ‘What are the crucial differences and why do they matter?’ So a good answer to that must talk about ownership, the profit motive, user friendliness, the perils of consolidation, etc.
LMAO, didn’t scroll far enough in the readme to see that image.
I want you to picture a series of tubes…
