mstdn.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A general-purpose Mastodon server with a 500 character limit. All languages are welcome.

Administered by:

Server stats:

17K
active users

@rysiek

It's got to be stopped, and it will only get worse the more it grows.

I've been keeping an eye on the meter at instances.social/mastodon.soci and it currently shows mastodon.social as 13.8% of all Fedi users.

I know it will be painful for people to defederate from 1 in 7 users, but it will be a lot less painful than 1 in 4, or 1 in 2, or wherever it is heading for on the current course.

instances.socialMastodon instances

@FediThing @rysiek

Defederation should be a nuclear option only for virtually unmoderated servers in my book. Blocking larger servers doesn’t do any good, doesn’t encourage users to migrate or set up own servers, and seems self-defeating. Better would be help mid to smaller servers do better distributed outreach and onboarding and teach users on big servers the value and ease of moving to smaller servers. And I say this as an admin of a small/medium server.

@tchambers
> Defederation should be a nuclear option only for virtually unmoderated servers in my book

Funny, I've been arguing this too, but I'm starting to come around to @FediThing's position. The combination of John Mastodon's decision to funnel most newbies into his mega-instance, with the persistent crypto-spam coming from it, is the final straw for me. Something's got to give.

(1/3)

@rysiek

@tchambers
I suggest drafting an open letter and getting it signed by other server admins. Tell John Mastodon his instances will be defederated if he doesn't address the problems they're creating. My suggestions for the conditions;

a) reverse the decision to funnel all new users of the official apps into his instances

b) manually approve all new accounts on them to weed out spammers

(2/3)

@FediThing @rysiek

@tchambers
c) close registrations for at last a week whenever spam or other serious abuse is (accurately) reported, so mods can redirect their attention from pre-approving new accounts to weeding out Bad Actors among existing ones.

d) maintain a mod to user ratio of no lower than X per thousand.

Thoughts?

(3/3)

@FediThing @rysiek

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@strypey @tchambers @FediThing I don't find ultimatums useful. Plus he already knows what needs to be done.

@rysiek
> I don't find ultimatums useful

It's not an ultimatum, just a statement of fact. Some admins are already Limiting m.s. Defederation, like winter, is coming if he doesn't get House Mastodon in order.

> Plus he already knows what needs to be done

Maybe. I'm no mind reader, so I don't know. At least if it's stated openly, a) he definitely does know, and b) there's evidence of due process when people complain about defederation.

Who knows, he might even listen?

@tchambers @FediThing

@strypey @rysiek @tchambers

I guess everyone will have their own "red line".

It's worrying in itself that we are having to guess his intentions, as it shows the project isn't operating openly and also shows that one person has far too much power. It's the monoculture Rysiek was warning about a while ago.

My suggestion would be we wait to see how the official app behaves after its next update? To see if there is any reaction at all to the concerns? Or is that too long?

@FediThing
> My suggestion would be we wait to see how the official app behaves after its next update? To see if there is any reaction at all to the concerns? Or is that too long?

I see no reason to wait. People have been complaining about John Mastodon's cavalier attitude towards the rest of the 'verse community for years. It's time a group of admins stood up to him together, and made it clear what's expected of fedizens with the level of power and responsibility he has.

@rysiek @tchambers

@FediThing
Ironically I've often been the one defending John Mastodon's right to run his projects as he sees fit ; ) I still believe that, but I don't see anything wrong with the rest of the community making our needs and expectations clear. It's a better option than just quietly defederating and grumbling amongst ourselves.

@rysiek @tchambers

@strypey @rysiek @FediThing

Anyone is free to defederate anyone, but everyone can ask "to what end?"

Defederation is a fundamentally self-defeating tactic to fighting centralization. And when does it stop? The top 3 largest servers etc? Top 10?

Much better: focus on growing the middle and lower end serers than blocking the big.

@tchambers @strypey @rysiek @FediThing

The problem isn't being the largest.

It's being a non-curated host of over One Million accounts.

@downey @strypey @rysiek @FediThing

If M.S were non-moderated I would agree.

That argument is entirely hinging on the term "non-curated."

Which is objectively false. They are doing a good job and handing the spam issues quickly.

These are just growing pains every server will see.

Yes we should keep pushing to decentralize, the way to do it is not to fragment and balkanize.

It's to grow the middle and low ends.

@tchambers

> It's to grow the middle and low ends.

Sure, but Gargron's decisions — making m.s the default in official apps, making the local timeline difficult to find in the local apps (did that get ever fixed?), etc — make this growing of middle and low ends very hard!

His decisions are actively undermining such efforts. That's the problem. We can debate all year about how we should grow middle and low ends, but Gargron is making it harder and harder.

@downey @strypey @FediThing

@rysiek @downey @strypey @FediThing

What market share inside Mastodon and Fedi users is the official app these days? Third, fourth? (Behind Ivory, IceCubes, etc?)

Not sure I know what this issue was: "making the local timeline difficult to find in the local apps (did that get ever fixed?)"

Only issue with growing from the middle and low end out is organizing.

@tchambers

> Not sure I know what this issue was: "making the local timeline difficult to find in the local apps ...

as of last summer the official Mastodon app didn't provide a way to browse the local timeline -- which isn't useful for people on m.s. but is very valuable functionality for people on smaller instances.

Not sure if this has been addressed or not.

@rysiek @downey @strypey @FediThing

@tchambers @strypey @rysiek

There's a danger is that the more m.s grows the more the network effect will kick in.

I'm often having to deal with people on @feditips who think m.s is better because it's where everyone is going anyway.

There could be a feedback loop where growth causes growth.

Also, as m.s gets bigger there's more chance of it being sold to someone worse. Eugen might change, or get bored, or get an offer he cannot refuse (not mafia, but just a lot of money 😁 ).

@tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

Growing middle and low ends is what used to happen on the old onboarding, where it asked people to choose a server.

It no longer does that, and people are no longer being driven to middle and low ends.

That alone should be cause for concern.

@FediThing @strypey @rysiek @feditips

The proper use of "network effects" should be to rally the thousands of mid-range and smaller servers to grow, and to encourage users to migrate to them from M.S. not to balkanize or fragment the Fedi.

Onboarding doesn't only happen at the JoinMastodon level unless folks don't push it at the local servers.

BTW: the new onboarding now only apply to the mobile app, right, the web UI is unchanged? And don't most use other apps now (Ivory, icebubes etc)?

@tchambers @strypey @rysiek

As far as I can tell, vast majority of new people sign up on the official app. That's why I am so concerned.

At least on feditips, most new people who talk to me are unaware there even are any other apps. Many aren't aware they can use website at all, they call Mastodon "the app" or "this app".

As far as I can tell, the membership flow is now this:

1. Hear about a social network
2. Look it up on their phone's app store
3. Install the official app
4. Sign up via the official app

People have been trained by years on Twitter, Facebook, Insta, Tiktok etc to think that the concepts of social network and apps and official apps are all one and the same thing.

This is why I think commercial platforms started to shut down or severely restrict APIs for third parties, to encourage this official app flow.

@FediThing @strypey @rysiek

On my server, which according to Instances.social is about 1 percent of the Fedi, but still big enough sample...

I'm seeing a 60 to 1 ratio of sign ups via web UI versus via apps.

And don't have the breakdown of apps but guarantee you it's isn't all the official Mastodon app being used.

@FediThing Yeah but this is normal! People don't understand the fedi so they need to have simple onboarding and initial experience so they stick around long enough to start to understand it and then make informed choices. (Even some of the newer admins complaining about Mastodon/Eugen don't seem to understand what the fedi is or how it works!) I mean, I was around for StatusNet and understand the fedi and I started on m.s.. @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@FediThing Granted, that was partly because I couldn't figure out how to reclaim my Friendica account because I think it was tied to my dead statusnet email 😂 That said, it still took me a while to figure out how things work here, etc. I think a lot of people underestimate how opaque the fedi can be for many people. @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@tchambers @FediThing @strypey @rysiek @feditips Most people who are new to Mastodon will use the “official” app because that’s the most logical place to start.

@ramsey Exactly and there were a lot of people here insisting that Mastodon needed to make the onboarding process easier for newbies who don't understand the fediverse (most new users but also quite a lot of less new ones apparently, which is fine, people shouldn't have to be working in tech or sociology to figure out how a complex social media service works). Choice is great until it's overwhelming and self defeating! Starting simple is good.

@tchambers @FediThing @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@ramsey So the issue in some ways is less the sign up part of the onboarding process but the follow up to the initial process that would involved newbies getting help getting set up and making info about use and instance options available. That might cut down on the "frustrating helpful but didactic stranger" fedisplaining problem too. @tchambers @FediThing @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@Lucinda @ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

That's an argument for having one server suggested, not an argument for having the biggest server suggested.

It is just as simple to sign up on (for example) mas.to as it is on mastodon.social.

There is zero need to have the biggest server by far being the default.

@FediThing Any suggested server would become the biggest anyway and since Eugen is being made responsible for this (by people in the fedi) then choosing one of the servers Mastodon runs really does make the most practical sense. Now, having a rotating roster of well run servers might be a better option (but that would also make some people angry and a lot of smaller servers don't want to be the entry point for all the random newbies).

@ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@FediThing Do YOU want the instance you mod for being the main entry point for newbies? What is your vision for a better process?

@ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@Lucinda @ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

A better process is easy:

Suggest one server, but it is picked at random from a pool of servers with reliable track records going back a year or more (or whatever criteria you want to apply).

If new people don't care what server they're on, then they won't care if it is picked at random like this from a trusted pool.

@Lucinda @ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

"Any suggested server would become the biggest anyway"

No, this isn't true.

They can rotate which server is suggested so that the growth is spread out.

@FediThing I don't see how this would end up being any different at all and how it would solve spam or moderation problems of being the entry point (so growing in size and facing similar size problems).

Do YOU want your instance to be part of this lottery?

@ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@Lucinda @ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

It would be different because it would spread the growth out. That's the point of this place, here's why:

fedi.tips/why-is-the-fediverse

It would reduce moderation problems by putting people onto smaller servers where there are more moderators per member.

Larger servers tend to have a tougher time dealing with spam etc because they have fewer moderators per member.

You would ask each instance that takes part whether it wants to be part of it.

fedi.tipsWhy is the Fediverse on so many separate servers? | Fedi.Tips – An Unofficial Guide to Mastodon and the Fediverse
More from Fedi.Tips

@FediThing Plenty of smaller instances can be spam problems too because they're run by a sole admin or have neglectful admins or moderators, etc. Size really doesn't denote quality or lack of quality. My other instance only allows new members via invite at this point. This whole idea that only larger instances can be a problem is ideological not practical since it always has to do with how the instance is run. @ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@Lucinda @FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek Blocking a smaller instance is less catastrophic to users than blocking a large instance, though. So, having a lot of smaller instances allows for easier moderation of the whole network.

@ramsey It's no less catastrophic to the individuals being cut off from the fedi or having friends cut off from the fedi. Let's try to stop thinking about the fedi in mass market type terms.

@FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@ramsey I already made the rotating between instances suggestion. That said, I understand that Eugen has specific responsibilities and considerations vis a vis Mastodon the org that other instance admins don't have, I can understand why he made an instance Mastodon runs the entryway when people were asking him, personally, to make the onboarding process easier. I mean, you can be part of the fedi without using Mastodon's software so there are options...

@FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@ramsey Also, people need to get used to processes, diversity and trying to make room for different and sometimes opposed needs if they're interested in working horizontally with others. Social organizing is a process heavy activity. I find dudes, especially ones who work in business type stuff, always want tidy solutions fast but that's not how social consensus is built and emerges from democratic processes. (#notallmen, obviously, but def some men...)

@FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@ramsey But I don't think rotating instances solves the dominant/big instance or moderation issues because it will just create more big instances.

@FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@Lucinda @FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek Gotcha. I had thought you were arguing against rotating instances, so I was confused. 🙂

@ramsey Nope, I just don't think it's the magic solution some seem to. And I'd like people to be transparent about their own agendas too, particularly if they're going to accuse Eugen of being some sort of evil dictator out to ruin the fedi. (I think it's fair to critique decisions and processes, of course, but also recognize what he's having to manage.) He's not bean dad ffs. 😂 It's more like herding cats.

@FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@Lucinda @ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

It's not always the case, but in general more staff per member means you can stay on top of problems more easily.

Taking it to extremes for illustrative purposes:

-If you had one member and one moderator, it would be very very easy to moderate.

-If you had a million members and one moderator, it would be impossible to moderate.

A typical Fedi server has 500-1000 members, so they have at least 1 moderator per 1000 members. If Facebook tried to have a ratio like this, they would need 3 million moderators (which they clearly don't have).

Big networks try to do moderation on the cheap without human beings, because at that scale they cannot afford to have humans moderating.

@FediThing No need to explain moderation to me, I understand the numbers game but small servers can be really badly run too, it's really not just about the ratios but the quality of moderation and the culture that's encouraged. Moderation isn't about math, it's about people and processes.

@ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek

@Lucinda @FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips Any instances in it would have to opt-in and probably meet certain criteria, like how the server list on joinmastodon works, now.

@ramsey Sure, I'm all for rotating the entry instance but they'll still all be big instances or people looking to become big instances opting in. A lot of established instances have been limiting their growth, it's the newer ones that seem to be keen to get much bigger (often run by rather fedi naive new admins it seems to me too!) @FediThing @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@Lucinda
> I'm all for rotating the entry instance but they'll still all be big instances or people looking to become big instances

I'm not sure why you think that. They'd have to be instances with open sign-ups. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be big nor wanting to be big. They could close sign-ups when their active users numbers reached their preferred size, and ideally the app would detect that and automatically remove them.

(1/2)

@ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips

@Lucinda
The app could give people this choice;

* create my account anywhere that will host me!

* ask me a few questions to help me find a suitable home for my account

The questions could be used to funnel people into location-based instances (eg send kiwis to mastodon.nz), or interest-based ones (eg send greenies to climatejustice.social), which would allow more niche servers to participate.

(2/2)

@ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips

@strypey @Lucinda @ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips this made me think of two potential implementations:
1. Include a visual progress bar to show how close to capacity any given server is. This could be added to something like the server list on join mastodon

2. Introduce additional guidelines and rules to the Mastodon covenant that define good moderation and capacity to properly moderate in terms of manpower, number of moderators, and user size per instance

@mariyadelano @strypey @Lucinda @ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips

That's terrible UX. It again suggests that the "theme" of your instance conditions which posts you see, which is one of the paralyzing misconceptions the entire default stance thing was supposed to fix. Only it's worse now because there'd be all these extra steps.

I have stayed away from this whole argument, but man, what a frustrating mess this turned out to be.

@mariyadelano @strypey @Lucinda @ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips

This entire and its related offshoots have the feeling of trying to get all your neighbours to agree on a new paint color for the common areas and it showcases the kind of irrelevant, upside-down design by committee that makes OSS feel like it can't compete with commercial software. It sucks.

Not your fault, though, this was just the post that threw my frustration over the top. Carry on.

@strypey Because it seems that many older instances with proven track records that want to stay small have already shut down signups (and are invite only) because the November wave was already too much. (That said, the fediverse is vast and varied so there are probably some exceptions.)

Anyway, I think all of this one app to rule them all idea just makes it more confusing and complicated and still doesn't represent the fediverse but Mastodon.

@ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips

@Lucinda
> this one app to rule them all idea just makes it more confusing and complicated and still doesn't represent the fediverse but Mastodon

Bang on. This is precisely what we're all here to complain about 😆

As I said to @tchambers in another post, fixing the overgrowth and under-moderation of m.s - which affects us all - isn't mutually exclusive of taking other actions to grow from the edges, help bring more instances into being, etc.

@ramsey @FediThing @rysiek @feditips

@strypey @Lucinda @ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips I personally found "interest" less helpful than "moderation policy". I.e., what kind of stuff will be blocked/filtered?

While a lot of stuff I post is about infosec as well, I'm happy at todon.eu which is an explicitly leftist place. But I agree with pretty much any moderation policy here. And since that's virtually the only difference in day-to-day usage b/w servers (at least for me), it's crucial to take this into account.

@strypey @Lucinda @ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips

That would be great. Although I chose a local instance, (uk) that doesn’t have a huge impact on how I use Mastodon; most of those I follow are elsewhere.

@peteralee
> I chose a local instance, (uk) that doesn’t have a huge impact on how I use Mastodon

The impact of good moderation often only becomes clear when it fails. I suspect that the benefits of a local instance are similar. Having said that, there's local and local. The Aotearoa instances are serving a population of about 5 million. Instances for London alone would be serving nearly twice that many.

@Lucinda @ramsey @FediThing @tchambers @rysiek @feditips

@FediThing Still really curious about your own ambitions for your instance and whether you would want to be an onboarding server and why you'd make that choice for or against it for your instance? I'm not judging either way, I just think transparency about our own interests and agendas is hugely important on the fediverse and in these conversations.

@ramsey @tchambers @strypey @rysiek @feditips

@FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @rysiek @feditips

Then a FAR, FAR better use of energy on decentralization would be to do a group fundraising, to offer to enable a round-robin onaboarding at the Mastodon.social level. If they chose to do that, the group raising that money would offer a donation to fund it.

Positive change, not fragmentation.

@tchambers I don't think anyone here is actually advocating for de-federating from m.s right now.

@FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @feditips

@rysiek I've seen some admins calling for everyone to defederate from m.s (granted, it was in a thread that included admins hwo didn't realize you can silence an instance so... 🤷‍♀️ ) There seem to be a mix of people who seem to just want to shrink wrap the fedi (micro fedi personal stuff?*) and people who want to increase the accessibility of the fedi so more people can find a home here (meta fedi discussions).

*not dissing personal motivations

@tchambers @FediThing @ramsey @strypey @feditips

@Lucinda sorry, I meant in this branch of the hellthread.

I keep seeing people mentioning "fracturing fedi is bad" over and over again and it just feels like flogging a long-dead horse. This branch of the conversation, from what I understand, had moved way passed "de-federate from m.s", and it feels quite unnecessary to keep bringing it up?

@tchambers @FediThing @ramsey @strypey @feditips

@rysiek Fair enough, sorry to drag the corpse out of the conversation grave then! May it compost into something nourishing and useful! @tchambers @FediThing @ramsey @strypey @feditips

@tchambers @FediThing @Lucinda @ramsey @strypey @rysiek @feditips

i imagine a simple approach would be to redirect every 2nd "simple" sign-up to a buddy server, which in turn has a buddy server and so on.

eventually there will be a server that is not on its 2nd sign-up and takes the new user in.