Way back in the early days, I worked on something called Mistpark - Rockstar Edition. It was basically a single-user instance for influencers, with auto-approval of connections who could all comment and interact with each other on your posts, but turned off the send stream permission so you wouldn't need to be bothered with their own boring lives. Your social stream could be all about you. Florida man would've loved it.

It was too much trouble maintaining a separate product that was single user along with an identical product that was multi-user so this product didn't last very long, but I guess the point is that this is when I discovered that the only thing that was different between Twitter influencers and Facebook profiles and Facebook pages and groups were permissions.

If you implemented a generic permission layer, you could configure it to handle any of these completely different use cases. Emulating every different social network in existence can be done by just setting a handful of permissions. I also added 'soapbox' accounts, which are like corporate pages. All they want to do is announce stuff, but not accept any comments or interaction with anybody, because over time any such ability will turn into a spam gateway for folks who have a grudge against your corporation. Then there was the "freelove" account. You automatically accept mutual relationships with anybody and everybody. Again, this is simply a matter of setting the appropriate permissions. This morphed into the RedMatrix permission system which everybody hated because they couldn't cognitively handle anything beyond "friends: yes or no". But it's still here today, buried under lots of different layers to make it more user-friendly.

I always think of (streams) as a tool for individuals to have personal communications with a modest number of people.

I also think this way, Bill. And I think one possible difficulty for people being interested in using (streams), today, is that this activity - having personal communications with a modest number of people - seems undervalued in the current "social media" landscape. In the end, I think it has to do with what you prefer do with your time: using one, two hours to write one thoughtful private message to a friend (as part of an interesting conversation) or post 15 public microposts and receive 200 likes?

@Mike Macgirvin 🖥️ One option that works well is having two modes: Normal mode and Advanced mode.

In normal mode, you only reveal the "friends: yes or no" model and perhaps a couple of other common ones. In advanced mode, you display more options.

Another 35 new followers for George.

I guess it would be fun to be an "influencer" with thousands of people reading my ideas and opinions. I could get a giant ego and start believing that I'm an expert on every topic. I've got to give George Takei some credit for (as far as I can tell) continuing to be a nice guy despite his popularity. Many influencers seem unable to do this.

I reckon GT's fish-weight to pond-size ratio is about optimal where he is now. And since his line is making public announcements to anyone who'll listen, the limited privacy controls and wacky conversational model over there shouldn't phase him too much.

"One option that works well is having two modes: Normal mode and Advanced mode."

You must be new here. ;-)

Yeah we tried that. We tried all kinds of different approaches. Actually there were 3 or 4 completely different iterations of the normal/advanced mode concept. They all went down in flames. The approach I'm using now in streams is the first one of the dozen different approaches we tried over the last decade that I haven't heard any complaints about. Or maybe folks are just tired of complaining.

the limited privacy controls and wacky conversational model over there shouldn't phase him too much.

"Set phasers to toot, Mr Sulu."

How much control do you want over your Fediverse interactions, and how much of that work do you want to outsource to somebody else?

I think this is a key philosophical difference between (streams) and Mastodon-type servers. Here, we assume that the individual user will want individual control, and Mike's software provides great tools for doing that.

Takei's home, universeodon.com, assumes that the server admin will do a lot of that work. Their blocklist currently has 39 instances "limited" and 809 instances "suspended".

We could do that with (streams) too, if we wanted to. And maybe it makes sense for a user who's got 420k followers and writes controversial stuff. It would be a useful service to provide, for users who can't do all the work themselves. (I would charge a lot of money for that, because I would NOT enjoy doing it!)

Still just daydreaming here. I've been pondering, if someone wants Fediverse access, is there any situation where I would recommend something other than (streams)? I think the answer is "Only if they require specific features we don't have" -- and most of those features are available in Hubzilla.

@Bill Statler I think this is a cultural question. The ActivityPub-based microblogging projects, Mastodon first and foremost, have a vastly different culture than we have.

Mastodon wants to be easy and convenient and nice and cuddly. This starts with mollycoddling newbies who are almost always Twitter converts, shielding them from any inconveniences, even almost hiding decentralisation from them by railroading them to one instance. And this includes content warnings in the summary field, something that Mastodon has invented. Many Mastodon users don't know self-care.

Hubzilla and (streams) are all about self-care. They have the NSFW app for individual reader-side content warnings. Mastodon has only introduced something similar as additional functionality to its filters last year. Few people know that, and I think fairly few people use filters in the first place. It's easier to ask moderators to deal with stuff. And when a new optional feature is rolled out, everyone demands their preference be made the default so that someone else will flick that switch for them.

I guess if you told Mastodon users that no Hubzilla or (streams) instance has any dedicated moderators, they'd shake their heads and wonder how that could even work. They probably couldn't imagine how things are done here: namely by the users. We have fine-grained permission control, we have the means to moderate our own threads, something that's completely unimaginable to Mastodon users, and we have a culture of actually using all these things.

if someone wants Fediverse access, is there any situation where I would recommend something other than (streams)? I think the answer is "Only if they require specific features we don't have" -- and most of those features are available in Hubzilla.

@Bill Statler, it seems to me that your perspective (and desire) is at the center of your question. But, when we are in a position of recommending something to someone, it is usually very important to know, to understand who is that someone - and that person's tastes, habits, preferences, expectations... (Think about what you do when someone you don't know asks you for a recommendation of a restaurant or a movie). Our recommendation will usually satisfy that person when it matches that person's related subjective cluster (tastes, habits, preferences, expectations...). In your question, above, I don't see you very interested in that someone - the only thing you inform us about that someone is that the person "wants Fediverse access", nothing more. And, without knowing the person better, you say that the only relevant information for you to do your recommendation is to know if the person requires specific features (streams) doesn't has. (In that case, you would recommend Hubzilla).
But, let's say you ask that person what things the person wants to do with the network. The person then tells you and you understand the person would be happy and satisfied with a network with "5 features" - while (streams), let's say, has 30, and Hubzilla, 32. In that situation would you still recommend (streams) to the person?

When Jupiter Rowland talks about the "cultural question", Jupiter is talking about that person's subjective cluster (tastes, habits, preferences, expectations...), formed in some previous "culture" and that can make more easy or difficult (fully) using (streams).
And, when Jupiter says that "Hubzilla and (streams) are all about self-care" and that "We have fine-grained permission control", Jupiter is actually talking about the exercise of a knowledge acquired in the end of a learning process. And... Is that someone who "wants Fediverse access" interested in embarking in that learning process?
Our time is one in which people have been systematically trained, everywhere, to adopt the most easy, convenient and simple systems, build by powerful people who are not interested in giving people control.
So, I suspect (streams) and Hubzilla would not be appreciated by every someone who wants fediverse access.

"So, I suspect (streams) and Hubzilla would not be appreciated by every someone who wants fediverse access."

But they might be appreciated by those who typically suffer harassment and abuse online and have gotten tired of the services they are using not doing anything about it. We're not asking the service to do anything about it. We just want somebody to provide tools we can use to make it stop - and to place more importance on making it stop than on growing their customer base.

But, let's say you ask that person what things the person wants to do with the network. The person then tells you and you understand the person would be happy and satisfied with a network with "5 features" - while (streams), let's say, has 30, and Hubzilla, 32. In that situation would you still recommend (streams) to the person?

I don't know. My thoughts on this have been oscillating for a long time. If someone tells me they want an experience similar to X/Twitter, what should I recommend? In late 2022, I might have suggested Mastodon or Akkoma or something similar. As of January 2024, I have seen many flaws and inadequacies in these projects. And most of these problems just don't exist in (streams) or Hubzilla, or they are smaller problems and easier to manage.

X/Twitter users look at Mastodon, and it appears to be "easy, convenient and simple" because it looks similar. And then they run into problems and become very unhappy, because solving those problems is hard, inconvenient, and complicated.

Meanwhile, (streams) is actually simpler. It might not appear that way at first glance, and we still need a good guide for new users. But all you have to do is sign up, create a channel (which will be "Social-Restricted" by default), find some connections and some interesting discussions, and start posting and commenting. I think most users could go for months before they find a reason to change some settings.

So, at the moment, my thinking is: A Fediverse beginner tells me he needs 5 features, and I know from my own experience that he will need 4 more features that he doesn't know about yet. I would try to recommend server software that gives him all 9 features. I think that in many cases that would be (streams) or Hubzilla, but it might be Pixelfed or Peertube or WordPress or something else. But it's unlikely that I'd recommend Mastodon.

Hubzilla and Streams can certainly be made to look like Pre-X Twitter or Mastodon or almost anything else. Hubzilla and Streams supports theming.

Once we get some documentation up on how to create themes, I would not be surprised if someone created such a theme.

It would have more privacy features, or course. The biggest difference would be that it would support threads, which Twitter clones do not. But changing the theme changes the experience.

I remember seeing somebody's Hubzilla theme that looked almost exactly like Facebook.

@Bill Statler

I remember seeing somebody's Hubzilla theme that looked almost exactly like Facebook.

We used to have more themes. None of the old ones work with the current version of Hubzilla though.

Sean Tilley created a half-dozen Hubzillla themes back in the day. One of those was the Facebook look-alike. I forget the name. But the repository still existed last I looked. You can change the max-version and get  the things to come up, but there are some oddities that will require fixing because this was like 7-8 years ago and hasn't kept up with Hubzilla core changes. I had the Facebook theme sort of working in streams a year or two ago.

https://github.com/DeadSuperHero/hubzilla-themes

I actually used the basic structure from Sean's themes to build my own. His repository was instrumental in helping me figure out how to make third-party themes, especially with my limited understanding of Hubzilla at the time. So I am very thankful of his work.

People only choose what they know. In most cases, they go for Mastodon because it's the only one they know, and all eyes are on it. In my opinion, that's the real problem. The freedom of choice depends on the elements you have in your hands to make the right choice. It's like in elections. When voters see only one candidate on TV, they'll vote for him because he's the only one they know. I think that in the fediverse, we've entered into a logic of competition rather than collaboration. And as long as that's the case, the only thing that counts is numbers and media visibility. How can we solve this ? I have no idea, but in any case, I remain convinced that this is the root of the problem. Before anything else.

@Mike Macgirvin 🖥️ And when @Scott M. Stolz publishes his Hubzilla theming documentation which, I guess, could be extended/adapted for (streams), it'll be easier to pick these themes up and update them. Or even make new ones in the same vein.

@lotfi

People only choose what they know. In most cases, they go for Mastodon because it's the only one they know, and all eyes are on it. In my opinion, that's the real problem.

That's all part of what I've been referring to as "mollycoddling" since the first wave of Twitter migration. People who want to leave commercial social media silos for the Fediverse aren't told what the Fediverse is and how far it extends because that'll overwhelm them.

What they're being told instead implies that mastodon.social is the Mastodon website. Or mas.to if someone is too lazy to type. Then they'll spend at least a month thinking it's the whole Fediverse until they find out about Mastodon's decentrality.

It usually takes them at least three months until they discover that the Fediverse is, in fact, not only Mastodon. That could be because they see the first toot that mentions Pixelfed, PeerTube or, most recently, Threads. Or it could be because they find a toot in their timeline that's deeply disturbing because it does stuff that Mastodon shouldn't be able to do, e.g. over 500 characters or text formatting or a quote.

Some have started developing their own Fediverse tools before that point. They advertise them as Fediverse tools, but they've built them against only Mastodon because that was all they knew. Making it compatible with the rest of the Fediverse might mean starting over from scratch, so it feels not worth it.

And people usually take over a year to learn what Hubzilla can do. Or that (streams) exists. If they ever find it out.

Now, I'm talking about private individuals. For companies, organisations etc., this whole process takes even longer because there's always some inevitable communication involved that slows things down a lot. And so you have companies or organisations with several-months-old official Fediverse accounts on mastodon.social when they should at least have their own instance.

And in fact, especially certain organisations would be far better off using something else than Mastodon, and they could profit from the extra features. But they're almost all on Mastodon because those who decide that stuff barely know, if at all, that the Fediverse is more than that.

I think the only political party present in the Fediverse that isn't on Mastodon is the German Pirate Party. And they've had their own Friendica node since long before the Mastodon hype.

that what is called today "The Fediverse" is not just one place put an universe of lots of different places/ planets... and it took me a while to understand that Hubzilla and (streasm) are planets on which things can be done quid different than to other planets... its not about copying know stuff into a decentralizes version but about providing all the tools we need for a digital existence in a network. So it is not about 5 features a Fediverse beginner might think he needs but about an universe to dive in which enables someone to live a sovereign digital live... we can't expect that a Fediverse beginner understands all this...

@𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓲𝓼

So it is not about 5 features a Fediverse beginner might think he needs but about an universe to dive in which enables someone to live a sovereign digital live... we can't expect that a Fediverse beginner understands all this...

Especially not if every last Fediverse beginner is made to believe that "the Fediverse" is a) "literally Twitter without Musk" and b) only mastodon.social.

@Jupiter Rowland

And when @Scott M. Stolz publishes his Hubzilla theming documentation which, I guess, could be extended/adapted for (streams), it'll be easier to pick these themes up and update them. Or even make new ones in the same vein.

I am hoping to support Streams as well, but first I need to get the Hubzilla ones out the door. Any assistance in porting them over to Streams would be appreciated though.

But they might be appreciated by those who typically suffer harassment and abuse online and have gotten tired of the services they are using not doing anything about it.

Sure they will be appreciated, Mike. If those people just give them a try, and if they embrace the learning process that comes along.

@Varanda

Sure they will be appreciated, Mike. If those people just give them a try, and if they embrace the learning process that comes along.

I think we just need to give them a theme that is similar to what they know, give them default permissions that make sense, and create some great documentation.

In my case, my ultimate goal is to create communities, and I will be using traditional discussion boards (forums) as a model. It would also be familiar to people who use popular websites like Reddit. People sign up using an interface they are familiar with, which gets them onboarded. They can start participating immediately since the basic functionality is familiar. Once they start playing around with it, they discover more features, including how to communicate with people outside of the website (i.e. the fediverse).

Something similar could be done with a theme that mimics (pre-X) Twitter.  I personally don't have an interest in building such a thing, since I am more interested in building communities, but someone who is interested could build such a theme.

Since Hubzilla and Streams can be modded, they can be re-themed to do almost anything. That is why, after I release our first theme, we will dive in documentation.

If someone tells me they want an experience similar to X/Twitter, what should I recommend? In late 2022, I might have suggested Mastodon or Akkoma or something similar. As of January 2024, I have seen many flaws and inadequacies in these projects. And most of these problems just don't exist in (streams) or Hubzilla, or they are smaller problems and easier to manage.

@Bill Statler, if you have written this earlier, I would not have anything to comment. But, since you have not, I've assumed you were considering those ActivityPub-only networks as viable choices today - and yet, considering only the situation in which "they require specific features we don't have".
But, now that you inform that, for you, those AP-only networks are not choices on the table, I totally agree with your recommendation strategy - it's the same as mine, as you know (tough for somewhat different reasons: I would not recommend any AP-only network since that derivative FB network has informed that it will use ActivityPub and that it will perform data harvesting of fedi participants).

@Bill Statler

If someone tells me they want an experience similar to X/Twitter, what should I recommend?

Before I recommend something to them, I would ask them "what exactly are you looking for?"

If they are just looking for access to 17 million accounts and channels, and approximately 7.3 million active users, and just want people to be able to follow their posts, any ActivityPub-enabled fediverse app would work. That's the whole point of federation.

Did they like Twitter because they liked the interface, or did they like Twitter because of what it could do?

Do they only want to broadcast short posts, or do they want to have conversations?

It might even be useful to ask them "What other social websites or apps do you use, and why not something like that?"

Their answers will guide you.

@lotfi, I strongly agree with your whole comment. I think one thing we can do to help solving the problem is introducing (streams) to our friends and other people we know and... beyond. And, if we have friends that are not tech people, introducing (streams) to them in a way they can understand and feel interested to try.

The problem is always the same: most people use these software  when they are sure of meeting and communicating with their old friends, relatives, work colleagues, favorite singers etc... In fact, looking at the numbers, even the big and famous mastodon has ridiculous numbers if you compare it with Twitter Instagram etc.

I think we just need to give them a theme that is similar to what they know, give them default permissions that make sense, and create some great documentation.

Here we already have 3 things. Big endeavor. But sounds promising. I think (streams) is not very far from these 3 goals - but people (specially non-tech) still need to know it exists.

I think we just need to give them a theme that is similar to what they know,

Yes, I think playing with what is familiar is a good strategy.

In my case, my ultimate goal is to create communities, and I will be using traditional discussion boards (forums) as a model.

I think that has a nice potential too.

The problem is always the same: most people use these software  when they are sure of meeting and communicating with their old friends, relatives, work colleagues, favorite singers etc...

That's why I think that introducing (streams) should be made along with an invitation/proposal to a new and different online social activity - and not asking for people stop using the commercial "social media".

For about a year or so I was successful: even before Diaspora I had used software to create a group of friends (like Tiziano Street ), and I had contacted some tech people who had lived in Tiziano Street , and 2 or 3 they took the bait, also because the software gave you the possibility of creating music playlists, in a week there were already 10 of us, in less than 3 weeks there were already 50 people.... But then little by little they all returned to Facebook.

But then little by little they all returned to Facebook.

Was there any conversation with those people about why that has happened?

... In practice, with the waning of enthusiasm for that thing, everyone went back to using Facebook and completely disappeared from the group/site, clearly because Facebook was not limited to that bar, that park, that street, but Facebook offered you the whole world .

@Giac El Vecio

But then little by little they all returned to Facebook.

It's the network effect. People tend to go where their friends are, and if their friends and family are on Facebook, they will keep going back. But with WordPress, Mozilla, Threads, Flipboard, Tumblr, and others looking to grow their network by connecting to the fediverse, we may eventually get to a point where it is as common as email, or at least as popular enough to enter the social consciousness. With a larger userbase, it will be easier to attract users, and those users will stay because their friends are also here.

😑 Many times people use 4, 5 different commercial "social media" where they basically have the same kind of experience. And when we talk to them about using an another social network to have a different - and more interesting - kind of experience, they show no interest.

@Varanda Yep, always the same.

"Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, LinkedIn and Discord!"

"Um, how about the Fediverse?"

"What? Another network?! Who's got time for that?!?"

People are always trying to avoid "hurt feelings"... and then they end up communicating "other things"...

They say:

What? Another network?! Who's got time for that?!?

When they're really saying:

What? I've never heard about that network.

The problem is always the same: most people use these software  when they are sure of meeting and communicating with their old friends, relatives, work colleagues, favorite singers etc...

Why is that? Are people not interested in meeting new friends? Or is it too much work? Or do they already have enough online friends to fill all their available time?

Probably all of the above. But also, Facebook (or X/Twitter, or Reddit etc) feel like home. Maybe it's a very messy home, and you hate some of your roommates, and the landlord is an ass, and the roof leaks, but you still think of it as home.

Or is it too much work?

People resist to learn to use new "systems". And that gets worse with age and when they don't foresee an immediate good result of that effort.

Or do they already have enough online friends to fill all their available time?

Not only the time, but, for some people, and according to Robin Dunbar, also the (neural/cognitive) "space".
At the same time, many people out there now suffers with a loneliness epidemic:
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1173418268/loneliness-connection-mental-health-dementia-surgeon-general

But also, Facebook (or X/Twitter, or Reddit etc) feel like home.

The "home feeling" may appear since loved people are there, for a long time, within an easy reach, and also as a result of great familiarity and habit.
But, for many, as you said, it's that house full of problems that one would prefer to leave for another place. The problem: most people don't know that another "home model" is even possible; and, that it already exists; and, informed that it exists, people don't understand it or don't believe it's real; and, if they understand/believe it, they don't see the value in doing a "first step", alone; and, some consider that it isn't even worth call their friends to do that "step", together.

@Bill Statler

The problem is always the same: most people use these software  when they are sure of meeting and communicating with their old friends, relatives, work colleagues, favorite singers etc...

Why is that? Are people not interested in meeting new friends? Or is it too much work? Or do they already have enough online friends to fill all their available time?

Because they don't want to abandon their online social circle, which includes real-life acquaintances, and build up a wholly new one in an unfamiliar place whenever they move to another platform.

That was the idea behind the various tools that searched for your Twitter connections all over Mastodon so you could re-connect with them.

And that was the idea behind Friendica federating with Facebook back in the day.

• You're on Friendica, all your friends are on Facebook, but you can still stay in contact.
• You manage to convince the first few of your friends to move to Friendica. After all, they can stay in contact with their Facebook friends.
• All your Facebook friends have moved to Friendica. You can turn your Facebook connection off.
• Your friends start successfully inviting their Facebook friends to Friendica.

Unfortunately, in practice, it never got beyond phase 1.

@Jupiter Rowland

Because they don't want to abandon their online social circle, which includes real-life acquaintances, and build up a wholly new one in an unfamiliar place whenever they move to another platform.

But, after having an account on FB, people have understood they would not need to abandon their online social circle there and move to a second platform if they've wanted to use it too; and, after that, do the same to a third; and, after that, to a fourth; and, after that, to a fifth. And it was exactly that they have done. After some time they were/are using 4, 5 different networks. Why? I think it was because 1) they have seen other people doing that move, and then 2) they've "perceived" that there was "value" in being on that new network (it was already its network effect attracting them).
Then I think the important question is: why the first people have made that move, when there was no network effect yet? I suspect it was because they've seen "articles" on diverse media (blogs, websites, magazines, newspapers...) talking about the network - and it seems that many people consider it's "real" (and interesting, valuable, relevant) what they see on media - and, also, many people don't consider it's "real" what they don't see "reflected" on media.

if we want to understand and analyze the "normal user" let's do not use the term "friends" here ... this leads on a wrong track in the first place... it's not about friends.. not about a Home . its not about a cloud or fun stuff like surfing but more about the opportunity to make new contacts... and communicate to lots of unknown people who may have the same interests ... and yes... also to find all your real friends also online... for all that the other platforms are just fine... only if also other criteria count HZ / streams have there role in this game...

In order to attract people from a larger network to a smaller network or group, you need to have a compelling benefit. There needs to be something on the smaller network that they want, and they need to want it enough to take action.

"It's like Facebook or Twitter, but it is smaller and less popular" is not a very convincing argument.

That is where my "content & community" strategy comes into play. You have to join my website or join an OpenWebAuth-compatible website to access our exclusive content and our exclusive community (forums, private group, etc.). Oh, and your account is fediverse-enabled, so you also get access to 17 million fediverse channels, and approximately 7.3 million active users.

There must be something they can't get on Facebook or X for them to switch. At least until we get to a tipping point and the network effect takes over.

"There must be something they can't get on Facebook or X for them to switch."

Uhm, some semblance of privacy and freedom from being harvested by hundreds or thousands of opaque corporate interests. No advertising. Your messages are actually delivered to your friends instead of being held for ransom or lost in some unknown algorithm somewhere. Being able to backup your online life and carry on - so that some faceless beauracrat can't just snuff you out for saying some word that has fallen out of favour with the tech elite today.

Yeah I know, it's weak. But it works for me.

Works for me too, but why can I not find other people who think that's important, or even desireable?

Reminds me of 25 years ago when I was saying "Encrypt your e-mail!" and everyone was like "Nah, nobody does that." And nowadays I have friends who get stressed out unless Google knows their exact location so that their friends and family can know too. If I started a "Join Borg and Be Assimilated" campaign, I'd get a billion members by tomorrow.

@Mike Macgirvin 🖥️

Uhm, some semblance of privacy and freedom from being harvested by hundreds or thousands of opaque corporate interests. No advertising. Your messages are actually delivered to your friends instead of being held for ransom or lost in some unknown algorithm somewhere. Being able to backup your online life and carry on - so that some faceless beauracrat can't just snuff you out for saying some word that has fallen out of favour with the tech elite today.

Yeah I know, it's weak. But it works for me.

Considering that most people walk around with devices that track their every move, I don't think most people understand that yet. Or if they do, they don't understand the implications of that.

I do think that more people are becoming aware though, so things are changing.