Scott M. Stolz

That’s because most fediverse platforms have no privacy features. You’d have to use something like Hubzilla or Friendica if you want access control, privacy, and groups with limited membership. They also allow users to control what they see and don’t see.

There are solutions in the fediverse out there. They’re just not widely known.

It depends on how your platform handles unsolicited posts and whether it supports threads and the concept of conversation containers.

For example, let’s compare Mastodon and Hubzilla.

Mastodon does not notify you of replies to your posts, but does notify you if someone mentions you. It does not support threaded conversations, which means that anyone can comment on your post without your permission. You can block people, but that does not remove their posts or mentions.

Hubzilla takes a different approach. Conversations are organized in threads, and the thread has a conversation owner. It is similar to how Facebook works in that regard. If you create a top level post on your own wall, you own that conversation. Similarly, if you post in a forum/group, the forum/group owns that conversation.

As such, they can control who comments on it and even delete comments. You can even make private or group conversations that only certain people can participate in. Unsolicited comments are either discarded or accepted for moderation. They only appear if approved by the owner of the thread.

And there are additional filtering and notification settings available.

Because of this difference, undesired posts are more like to appear on Mastodon than on Hubzilla. And even if they do appear, they are easier to remove.

The more tools you have to control notifications and what appears as replies to your posts, the better. But it also makes the system slightly more complicated. Think Facebook vs. Twitter. Both are social media, but how they handle things are very different.

I am guessing that some platforms will fare better than others, and many platforms will have to adjust how they handle incoming posts as more people arrive in the fediverse.

@compostgoblin Some of the earliest platforms included StatusNet, Diaspora, Friendica, Red Matrix/Hubzilla, etc. All are much older than Mastodon.

@compostgoblin There were several other protocols such as OStatus, Diaspora, and Zot prior to ActivityPub. Mastodon originally used OStatus, and switched to ActivityPub later. A lot of platforms are older than Mastodon too.

@underscores

In some cases it could also be people that genuinely want to follow you. People often talk about one topic but still care about other stuff.

Many people fall into that category. I follow a lot of interesting accounts that have nothing to do with what I talk about on my channel. Sometimes you follow people because they know more about a subject than you do, or are just interesting.

Considering that different states and countries have different laws, which range from 12 to 16, it would be hard to find servers willing to host anyone under those ages.

Since it is possible to host your own fediverse server, in some countries, it would be possible for the parents to setup a fediverse server that their child could use.

This would only be legal in countries where “parental consent” is required. It would be illegal in countries where there is an absolute ban on children using social media.

@AnonomousWolf I would redefine it like this:

• Very Easy: Works with common hosting platforms and non-developers can install it using simple instructions.
• Easy: One-command Docker or install script, low resources, great documentation
• Moderate: Docker or manual setup, some config, active community support
• Hard: Complex setup, needs regular updates or custom config (e.g. DNS, spam)
• Very Hard or Proprietary: Little to no self-hosting support, undocumented

@AnonomousWolf What if you can install it with only a couple of commands and Docker is not required? Docker should not be the gold standard.

Option 1: Execute a couple commands to execute an install script.

Option 2: Figure out what Docker is. Figure out that Docker is not installed. Research how to install Docker. Install Docker. Execute the the Docker command. Screw it up. Ask for help from a developer since you never heard of Docker before.

Option 2 is way harder unless you are a developer and know what Docker is.

It is not user friendly to install if you have to be a developer to install it! In fact, I would call that user-hostile because the average power user or administrator can’t install it.

For “easy” I think it should have an install script (of any kind) and that it does not have to be Docker.

For “very easy” it should be like the WordPress 5 minute install. Upload the files, set up the database, and go to a URL to configure it.

This was supposed to be a reply to a different post, but it wasn’t attached somehow.

None of these projects are made by companies. They are made by individuals or small groups, and although they know how to code, they usually know nothing about marketing. That is why they are small compared to Threads or Bluesky. Marketing expertise, or lack thereof.

True. But when talking to someone who lives on traditional social media, it is an explanation they would understand. Sometimes you have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.

For those on traditional social media, I just say “What if Facebook and Twitter and YouTube could all talk to each other? People on Facebook could follow people on Twitter and people on Twitter can follow people on Facebook.” Then they usually reply “that would be neat” and then I tell them “yeah, that’s what we are building over here in the fediverse.”

It usually is easier to give them an analogy related to something they are familiar with.

To create something like this, you would need to federate two components, and optionally a third.

1. The applications.
2. The app store.
3. Curation groups.

You would also need to create a standard (a protocol) for the app store to talk to the websites hosting the applications.

Application Hosting: Basically, everyone can create their own website with their own apps. That part would be unmoderated, similar to how you can go to a software publisher’s website today and download a Windows program. They publish their application and data about their apps in a machine readable way where an app store could take that data and create a listing.

The App Store: There would be open source app store code that allows people to run their own app store. The people operating an app store decide what gets listed in the app store. Some app stores will be for a particular niche while some will attempt to list everything. For example, you might have app stores that only have open source software. This would still make the app store operator the gatekeeper, but what is different here is that anyone could use the same software and set up their own app store.

Curation Groups: This allows people or groups to create their own curated list of approved apps. This provides the app stores a shortcut so they don’t have to review every single app themselves. This would allow individuals, communities, associations, and even businesses to create moderated lists of apps they reviewed and believe should be listed in app stores. Mastodon could publish a curated list of Mastodon Apps they recommend. Open source organizations could create a curated list of apps they recommend. The app stores could consume such lists.

People can then choose the app store and the apps they trust. App stores can choose the curated lists they trust.

This is similar to how podcasting platforms work, where a podcaster publishes their audio files and an RSS feed with information about their Podcast, and various Podcast Directories list their podcast. Or similar to how platforms like Steam work, where they list games, many of which can be obtained on the game author’s website as well. The key point being that the authors of the apps can get listed in multiple app stores.

Optionally, both the Application Hosting software and App Store can be integrated with protocols like ActivityPub, AT Protocol, or Nomad/Zot protocol for the purpose of sending out notifications to followers who may be interested in updates and news about the apps or the app store. At the very least, it should list an existing fediverse handle where people can follow them.

So, yes, it can be federated.

To be safe and secure, you would want multiple organizations with resources to run competing app stores using this software and protocol. These organizations can be non-profits, cooperatives, or even small businesses. The reason why is because an organization is more likely to have the resources to moderate the list of apps in their App Store, whereas an individual most likely would not, unless that was their full time job.

Whereas anyone who created an app could run their own website with information about their app, and then request to be listed in various app stores and curated lists.

I think this a great idea!

@NostraDavid

Why is it so expensive to federate Bluesky?

Mostly because it depends on certain centralized services. You can create your own apps and even host your own content, but the discovery and distribution system has a copy of every post so that it is easy to access by everyone. The positive side is that you don’t have to worry about missing replies in the conversation since their centralized database has a copy of it. The downside is that hosting such a massive database is expensive.

A marketplace of apps is actually a good thing. Not everyone wants something based on Twitter (i.e. Mastodon, and similar). Not everyone wants Reddit (Lemmy, Mbin, etc.). Not everyone wants a traditional forum (NodeBB). Not everyone wants a blog (WordPress, Hubzilla, etc.). Not everyone wants Facebook (Friendica, Hubzilla, etc.).

One of the goals is to build increased compatibility between apps so that you can choose which experience you want, yet can still talk to anyone else on the fediverse. Some big players will certainly emerge, but I think that there will always be hundreds of compatible apps.