Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:19:43 JST Evan Prodromou

   So, I'd say mostly network. Here's my reasoning.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:22:13 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     Adding new networks lets people connect while not losing any of their existing connections. I think that's great for retention. The social web is meeting them where they live, rather than forcing them into new technology that is strange to them.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:23:39 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     It also means bringing new, interesting subcultures to the social web. Every time we add a forum, a professional community, or a workplace, that's a new set of perspectives and experience that makes the whole web richer.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:25:46 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     From a technology perspective, adding new ActivityPub implementations challenges and enriches the protocol. Not every new network will be a new implementation, but some will.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:31:52 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     I want to connect to my family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. That's what a social network is for; connecting people to each other.

   • Embed this notice
     Ellipsis... (tobiaspatton@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:44:14 JST Ellipsis...

     in reply to

     @evan My answer was also "mostly networks", for the reasons you outline here and also because I think it's unfair to blame the users of unethical social media companies for the crimes of those companies. I'm done with Meta and X, but I still miss some of the people there. Since the people are not moving to The Fediverse, the best case scenario for me would be for for their services to federate. It comes with risks, of course.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:52:36 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • Ellipsis...

     @tobiaspatton that's not all communities, though. I think bringing a whole university, or a membership organization, onto the fediverse can be really positive and much more comfortable for the members.

     For commercial social networks, joining the fediverse gives people a much easier offramp onto network services they control. They don't lose social connections, and soon they'll even be able to move without losing their posted content. Such a better experience than starting over from scratch.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:57:41 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • Fifi Lamoura

     @fifilamoura fair enough. "Connecting to friends, family, neighbours and colleagues, and not connecting to anyone you don't want to."

   • Embed this notice
     Fifi Lamoura (fifilamoura@eldritch.cafe)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 00:57:42 JST Fifi Lamoura

     in reply to

     @evan That's a yes and a no for me. Sometimes social networks are about connecting to some people and hiding from others. In an ideal world we'd all be safe connecting to everyone, that's not the world many of us live in though. A big problem with technology is how it's so often designed by straight men who defacto assume that not only are there no threats but everyone else should be available to them to access when they want. This endangers women (and queer people) continually because it keeps creating tools of abuse (stalking/tracking tools, revenge porn tools, targeting tools, etc).