> I'm not sure if this is meant to be some kind of childish insult or gotcha but no: I'm talking in representation of luddites.
No, it's an observation.
You're insisting things have to work a certain way in order for them to have value and be usable. Things don't have to operate in a specific, fixed way.
Saying decentralisation will never catch on because it doesn't fit your description of accessibility is like saying someone won't be able to operate in society without knowing how to read or write cursive.
Things change. How people learn about stuff, how they use technologies, how they think about them, it all changes. It was once a widely shared opinion that computers would never catch on. Or that the internet wouldn't catch on. Or any other number of things wouldn't catch on. And they did, despite anyone's objections that it would.
As people's mindsets change, as technology advances, so will how it's used. And you don't seem to be open to that idea. Hence the luddite comparison.
> You're insisting things have to work a certain way in order for them to have value and be usable. Things don't have to operate in a specific, fixed way.
No, I'm not. I'm staying on the topic of the thread you're posting in: Reddit's future and where people may or may not migrate to. You're doing exactly what I accused the creators of Fediverse technologies are doing: fixating on the ideology and taking an opportunity to preach.
I see the value of the Fediverse. I see the intent. I understand it. It's not complex.
But it isn't a replacement for Reddit. I don't even think you're arguing that. I think you're trying to get me to debate some strawman. I never said the Fediverse has no value. I said it has no mainstream appeal so long as people prioritize the ideology of the technology over the use case.
> Things change. How people learn about stuff, how they use technologies, how they think about them, it all changes. It was once a widely shared opinion that computers would never catch on. Or that the internet wouldn't catch on. Or any other number of things wouldn't catch on. And they did, despite anyone's objections that it would.
This is an argument that things _can_ change not that things _will_ change. Plenty of things never caught on. On that note, Diaspora existed as a widely available alternative to Digg when Digg died.
> Centralization works... It's approachable for laypersons.
You are arguing that things will not change because it doesn't work in a very specific way. I'm replying to what you said. This isn't a straw man argument.
There doesn't need to be a direct replacement for Reddit. Things don't have to continue to work like that. Your assumption of what's difficult to do isn't an absolute. People have shown they're able to adopt new ideas, new ways of doing things.
> I'm talking in representation of luddites.
You're not giving enough credit to society. They're not cattle. They don't just sit in a field and chew cud.
Mindsets and ideologies change. How technology is used changes. Your insistence that there has to be a direct, fully equivalent replacement for Reddit to be successful is incorrect.
I'd take a wager that we'll see Digg 3.0/Reddit 2.0 before we'll see widespread adoption of the Fediverse.
I don't think people are cattle and I think that is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my position. I don't think people are cattle. I think they are anything but: I think they have made a conscious decision about what they want and value.
What I think is that people have become accustomed to having a wide array of information on a wide array of topics easily indexed and accessible. What I think is that people value that accessibility of information. And I think that products like Lemmy don't meet that requirement and so something like Reddit will always exist, regardless of the centralized corporate ownership.
> I don't think people are cattle and I think that is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my position.
I'm not attempting to misrepresent you, that's just how you're coming across. You're effectively saying that people are either too lazy or not competent enough to use services that aren't packaged up and served directly to them. Hence the analogy.
> something like Reddit will always exist, regardless of the centralized corporate ownership.
Maybe, but that's not the point. You're claiming that decentralised services won't see wide spread adoption because it doesn't conform to how things work on Reddit. My point is it's narrow minded to have that mindset.
> You're claiming that decentralised services won't see wide spread adoption because it doesn't conform to how things work on Reddit.
That is explicitly not what I said. What I said was:
> What I think is that people have become accustomed to having a wide array of information on a wide array of topics easily indexed and accessible. What I think is that people value that accessibility of information.
A replacement doesn't have to work how Reddit works. It just has to provide some of the same value.
The following are your words, not mine, although the emphasis is:
> > Federated services will never become mainstream. This is just the reality that people need to come to accept. I find them heavily talked about in circles with my colleagues and in my profession but the attraction of decentralized services just isn't there for the vast majority of people.
> > I'd take a wager that we'll see Digg 3.0/Reddit 2.0 before we'll see widespread adoption of the Fediverse.
Those two points are not contrary. The quote you pasted does not dispute my point at all. Your emphasis is my point that the fact that the service is decentralized does not allow it to make up for the fact that it does not meet the needs of the users.
It does for some people -- some people value the fact that it's decentralized over other needs -- but my point is the vast majority of people don't care as long as the information they need is there and accessible. The fact that it's decentralized is, in itself, not enough.
EDIT: And to be clear: I think the fact that it's decentralized doesn't preclude it from having those other properties that users value just that the developers of Fediverse applications don't seem to realize that they need to do something more than make it decentralized. That's the entire essence of my post.
> And to be clear: I think the fact that it's decentralized doesn't preclude it from having those other properties that users value
And yet:
> > Federated services will never become mainstream. This is just the reality that people need to come to accept
> > Centralization works. It's convenient. It doesn't require a user guide. It's approachable for laypersons. This is just the reality
> > Lemmy is an alternative to Reddit like water is an alternative to beer. Sure, they exist in the same kind of universe, but no sane person would tell you to switch from water to beer because they don't meet the same needs.
And then there's this:
> > I find Lemmy frustrating to use and it isn't just growing pains: it's the same reason I find Mastodon frustrating. Do I care if username@somecommunity.infosec.somecommunity matters? Do I care if I use lemmy.world or do I have to find some server? Which server?
> > I see the value of the Fediverse. I see the intent. I understand it. It's not complex.
Which one is it? Complex or not? Do you need a user guide? No? Which one?
You're all over the place. Saying centralisation is required for mainstream adoption which means decentralisation isn't, but somehow decentralisation isn't the problem that the fediverse has?
One thing that I haven't pointed out in all of this is that signing up and using reddit might have been easy for you, but that isn't the case for every body. I'd wager for most visitors to reddit, whether or not they have registered an account, they simply consume the content there like they would a Facebook wall. Many users don't understand the concept of subreddits or fine tuning their account to their interests. They aren't getting the same value out of it that you place so highly on it.
Centralization does not necessarily make things user friendly. Nor does decentralisation make things less user friendly. You have implied both to be true and then contradicted yourself.
I'm not all over the place. You're just exactly the frustrating personality type I'm talking about: one who is hyperfixated on the technology and the decentralized nature who can't see the forest for the trees and is more interested in arguing the minutia.
I'm content in my belief that we won't see a mass adopted Fediverse technology replace Reddit in my lifetime. I think theres a variety of reasons for this but the people involved in the development and advocacy of the products and their inability to listen to any feedback are the biggest one. They think they've got this _allllll_ figured out and it's just humanity that needs to evolve to meet them.
I'll come back here and apologise if I'm wrong. I don't see that happening, though.
> You're just exactly the frustrating personality type I'm talking about: one who is hyperfixated on the technology...
If anyone here has been hyper fixated on technology it's you. I haven't been heralding the Fediverse. I haven't been waxing poetic about decentralisation. I've only been responding to the things you've said about how the centralised nature of Reddit is why it's successful and that decentralisation will never successful, which is something you said.
> > Federated services will never become mainstream.
As for this:
> I'm content in my belief that we won't see a mass adopted Fediverse technology replace Reddit in my lifetime. I think theres a variety of reasons for this but the people involved in the development and advocacy of the products and their inability to listen to any feedback are the biggest one. They think they've got this _allllll_ figured out and it's just humanity that needs to evolve to meet them.
It's not like those products can't evolve. The developers and communities behind these products can, and most likely will, do things to help with adoption of the services they've created. This isn't like the book of Genesis. Just like how some deity didn't create the earth in six days and then rested it's not like new features won't be added or different federated offerings won't appear.
> I'll come back here and apologise if I'm wrong. I don't see that happening, though.
Nah, that's okay. It's just a chat on a web forum. I imagine we'll both forget about it in a few days.
> It's not like those products can't evolve. The developers and communities behind these products can, and most likely will, do things to help with adoption of the services they've created. This isn't like the book of Genesis. Just like how some deity didn't create the earth in six days and then rested it's not like new features won't be added or different federated offerings won't appear.
The _entire_ point of my first post was my finishing sentence:
> I wish people would focus on building services that meet peoples needs and not just as an expression of their ideologies.
Put more plainly: these services have been around for a decade (diaspora* was a viable alternative to Digg before Reddit) without meaningful adoption _or_ evolution in spite of that lack of adoption. I surmise it's because the folks developing them are more interested in the ideologies than building communities.
Obviously they can change. Obviously they can become a better fit with a bigger focus on UX. But they haven't in the last decade and I'm not seeing any indication they will this one, either.
No, it's an observation.
You're insisting things have to work a certain way in order for them to have value and be usable. Things don't have to operate in a specific, fixed way.
Saying decentralisation will never catch on because it doesn't fit your description of accessibility is like saying someone won't be able to operate in society without knowing how to read or write cursive.
Things change. How people learn about stuff, how they use technologies, how they think about them, it all changes. It was once a widely shared opinion that computers would never catch on. Or that the internet wouldn't catch on. Or any other number of things wouldn't catch on. And they did, despite anyone's objections that it would.
As people's mindsets change, as technology advances, so will how it's used. And you don't seem to be open to that idea. Hence the luddite comparison.