this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)
Fediverse
17770 readers
1 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This has always been a flaky thing. Federation has worked in the past but not reliably. No idea why.
Looking into it now, it still seems incomplete. I compared bookstodon with my view on mastodon (hachyderm.io) and the view that kbin.social has.
All three were different. Yay decentralisation and federation!!
Mastodon has the most content, which makes sense, a.gup.pe is intended to work with mastodon and so they'd make sure that works. Both lemmy and kbin seem to be missing content, which also makes sense as they're much smaller than mastodon and don't get the same attention from a.gup.pe (Yay ... federation).
Kbin.social seems to have more content than lemmy. But it also renders it as a microblog ... which is not how I want groups to be structured (hence why I'm on the threadiverse/lemmy/kbin).
Lemmy's a.gup.pe feed being incomplete is likely a fundamental issue with how a.gup.pe structure their posts and lemmy not understanding that. I'm guessing Lemmy's rule of disallowing posting to multiple targets/communities is a big factor in this, as a.gup.pe posts are typically made by mastodon users who are likely to also tag other users, whereas lemmy, to prevent brigading, will only accept a community/group as the first address in a post (yay .... federation ....).
So while it's good seeing this liven up again ... it seems like someone needs to get into the weeds and sort this out from both sides.
Otherwise, and maybe I'm feeling particularly grumpy about the fediverse today ... this really is a great demonstration of how decentralised/federated social media can be ... just meh and a bit shit. It shouldn't be this hard to implement a standard structure for social media (groups/channels/sub-reddits) with an allegedly standardised protocol. In reality, it seems, the standard is rather ambiguous and flimsy to the point that every platform is idiosyncratic.
I say this just so that any one getting excited about possibilities doesn't get burnt out from incomprehensibly annoying disappointments. They are all around the place and can darken this place a bit.
You're framing it as if this is a bad thing that Lemmy can only see some of the agupe content, but wait until you see how much content non federated platforms can see from each other! I really don't see how some content is worse than none, if you really want all of it then make an account over there like every other social network in the past requires you to browse on their site/app. It'll probably improve over time but it really sounds like you're upset that it already sometimes works instead of not at all.
Well sure, glass half full or half empty. To be clear, my problem isn't with either lemmy or a.gup.pe ... they're open source projects doing great things IMO, and I hope I've not made any of their devs upset.
My problem is with what seems to me
as a mostly technically naive user that tries to pay attention to what others who know better are saying
a tendancy on the part of the fediverse to not live up to its hype or promise, which, AFAICT, is attributable to the nature and design of the protocol and how federation works on the fediverse.
And sure, we can celebrate something half working ... there is, as you say, definitely something cool in seeing federation happen.
But there's a reality here that is too easy for open source projects to ignore ... user experience matters.
Unless you've got a great big sign on the app/platform that warns any user that this thing will not work at any random time (which OSS users implicitly understand but not everyone does) anytime the UX breaks in unexpected, uncontrollable and incomprehensible ways, a user has an upsetting experience. Sure, it's a bit of a first world problem, but the promise of social media is to connect socially with people, which involves an expressive and emotional behaviour. Moreover, people are drawn to the fediverse for emotional reasons: join the "good place", do the "right thing", help build a better internet etc.
The moment something unexpectedly breaks on someone as they're earnestly trying to reach out and make this place work for them, something rather frustrating and a little heart breaking happens.
In this case, there's something iffy about the protocol itself that things like this can "half work".
You ask whether it's better that it doesn't work at all ... and I'd say yea, probably. For the simple reason that to some user "half working" won't be discernible from "fully working", creating an expectation of functionality that will inevitably be disappointed. What happens when someone posts to the group and it doesn't get federated and they get no replies or interaction? They're gonna think there was something wrong with their post. If it happens a few more times, there's gonna be some psychological effect, however much we don't like to think about how emotionally bound we are to social media. What if they praise that a.gup.pe is on lemmy and tell everyone they should use it to only realise down the line that they've told people to try something that doesn't work well and feel embarrassed and frustrated that they've dedicated time, energy and their personal endorsement on something that's clearly got problems in the foundations? That's not a bitter experience that turns people off of caring about the fediverse? Why wasn't there someone warning everyone that the system wasn't working? Why allow something to only half work without telling anyone about it?
If this doesn't make sense to you ... I can assure you it happens ... people have gotten very upset over things just breaking down here. And part of the difficulty isn't that the system is inconvenient and hard to use ... it's that when it breaks it breaks in mysterious ways for the user, in ways that are undocumented, unknown and sometimes misconstrued and misrepresented by others.
I don't mean to demean the developers and their projects. But I do think broken things looking like working things is awful user experience, and that ActivityPub in the way that it seems to be a vague and very flexible protocol contributes to exactly these sorts of problems and should be criticised for it.