nostr:npub1r7fu25kzua2ysd7p28gvekapxg4n4vtcqh2ky4va5sajkdv9ea6qcrdc53 to clarify, my post was not about how the fediverse will take over the world. It was only about why there suddenly is interest (by a comparatively small, but noticeable) set of people and organizations. How far it can go from here is a different conversation. I agree that most of the problems that need to be solved before this can become a mass market phenomenon so far are unaddressed.

nostr:npub1r472r6l048muneexp0tx0rmhdz890lq6t7ds30unknl40tm9udhsqswytr would it make sense to make two lists: 1) benefits if you use the Fediverse on an existing server rather than big social, and 2) additional benefits if you use your own server?

nostr:npub1ldk3lajhsvstz8vjxa4avv6utvnlv8a8ujt4ykpes0p7ggeevyssus5msg can I challenge you :-) to rephrase this in an active voice like: wants because they that gives them ?

... to recognize that an open social network allows them to innovate in ways that they never could in a closed network, potentially leading to new business opportunities.

I think my answer would be:

1. the increasing enshittification of the current internet causes individuals and communities to seek out still-less-enshittified alternatives, and preferably alternatives that are less like to do so in the future. ("Use mastodon: no ads!")

2. the growing unease with use of collected personal data for manipulation by the big platforms causes users to seek out places that don't do that. ("Use mastodon: no algorithms!)

3. some organizations are beginning ...

nostr:npub137wzhhljlynmuj3g5vaykd3ywxwr5cddqg3s9pf52ye7zmmupmxsrp7g9r I’m not sure that’s actually entirely true. I for one do not know what happens to my data on the various fediverse instances I’m on. I settle for “oh, I know some of the social.coop key people and I trust them” but then, my trust may be misplaced and I cannot be certain all people who, say, have access to the backup tapes are even qualified to understand how to handle them properly.

nostr:npub14kh6e56lzu5lupphc8mtyzz3mdwn324qlpydz54raqvy8se999fs9d5jxv "Re-imagining of the original purpose and potential of the internet" -- who wants to re-imagine that, and why does it matter to them? After all, nobody re-imagines the original purpose of say, the road system (horses, wagons, troops on foot movements)

(I'm not disagreeing, I'm just trying to make the reasoning explicit.)

nostr:npub14kh6e56lzu5lupphc8mtyzz3mdwn324qlpydz54raqvy8se999fs9d5jxv "allows greater organization control of your presence and connections online" -- what kind of control specifically in terms of features? Who wants it? And why do they want it? And why do they want it now?

nostr:npub14kh6e56lzu5lupphc8mtyzz3mdwn324qlpydz54raqvy8se999fs9d5jxv Why is it "the fastest growing segment of the internet" (is that true? Are there numbers?) and why is it "posed for explosive growth"?

nostr:npub137wzhhljlynmuj3g5vaykd3ywxwr5cddqg3s9pf52ye7zmmupmxsrp7g9r When you say "control", what kind of control, who wants it and why? What's the evidence they do want it? (I'm not disagreeing, just trying to make the reasoning explicit)

If you were to write an "analyst report" and you had three short bullet points to explain "why the #fediverse, and why now?", what would you write?

Streaming is turning into cable tv, in terms of pricing and ads.

The supposed revolution turns into the old guard.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/media/disney-plus-streaming-prices-reliable-sources/index.html

Threads has implemented rel=me, but if I read mozeri’s post correctly, only in one direction. That would not be good or sufficient.

https://www.threads.net/@mosseri/post/Cvu2fDiLZve/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

#relme #threads

“Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'”.

It simply had to come to this. A bunch of “Christian” churches would clearly expel Jesus himself for being far too “liberal”.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-evangelicals-2663078391/

Finished “Children of Time” by Adrian Tchaikovsky. Actual science fiction, not just a story in some off-world setting. Interesting book, recommended.

nostr:npub1f4kj96zxqyzlvwlhp70k965e7qgzqwmzgysmwcj0696k9dmp0h0snaeunn Part of the problem with a term is that one can come at this from so many angles (like tech vs governance) and the terms will likely be different based on that.

Right now, what I'm personally interested in is the name for a technical architecture pattern. Like client-server, or thin client, or P2P, or LocalFirst, or ... I think "federated" or "decentralized" is insufficiently precise.

We need a name for the architectural style where there are many servers, many of those instances of the same software, interacting with each other over well-defined protocols (so one can temporarily forget about the many servers if one wants to), while each server is independently maintained / governed by its own community.

Ideas?

Somebody who is not very technical asked me whether what we do in the Fediverse is "#LocalFirst software".

Which is a very catchy name, and sort of related, but of course architecturally different if we go with the Ink & Switch definition: https://www.inkandswitch.com/local-first/

We don't like centralized services.

So we develop Federated Apps.

FedApps.

Because we are FedUps.

The FedUps with their FedApps.

When your algorithm takes less than half a second with 1,000 elements. And 58 seconds with 10,000 elements.

Then, shall we call it, you've got a problem, fair and square(d).