The distributed administration and diverse community structure also give it resistance to large scale bot and disinfo campaigns.
My main beef is that some design constraints of ActivityPub are generally poorly explained.
E.g, I've seen virtually no discussion about its "lossy" memory model. No instance sponsor can afford to archive all of the Fediverse message traffic. Hence, full search is impossible.
To me, that's a feature of ActivityPubs resistance to abuse. But others expect it.
Umm ... are you married? There are costs to that strategy.
I'm just asking if some folks who are smarter than me can help craft an effective story. I suspect there are quite a few potential converts who might be helped.
@evan I would rather refer to the fediverse as a network and Mastodon as a service, than calling it a platform. My mission is to move from platforms to protocols. Platforms are lock-in instruments.
Err. I think Evan was looking for other revenue streams to keep the identi.ca service going for enthusiastic and loyal users (like me and you). He was undoubtedly subsiding the costs of providing that service for a long time (probably out of his own pocket).
Not harbouring dreams of becoming a 'billionaire'.
@asha that's interesting. What do you mean by "not monetized"? There are already lots of Fediverse services you pay to use, like masto.host and wordpress.com. I think they're OK, although I prefer cooperative models like cosocial (which members also pay for).
@asha yeah, I think there's a biiiiiig difference in kind between commercial services as an option, and having the entire thing run by a single company. I'm much less concerned about other people making commercial-oriented choices with their social networking if I can easily opt out and ignore it.
sorry, i expressed myself somewhat incorrectly, as you posted already before, i hope that the fediverse will stay free of billionaires, oligarchs, etc., and won't be hijacked and destroyed by them.
@andyc also, and I hate to be the one to tell you, but Oracle isn't even in the top 20 of most evil tech companies any more. It feels kind of quaint to think about a time when the worst thing a tech company could do was have aggressive sales teams that get their product into a borderline monopoly percentage of the world's server rooms.