The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.
I think that it would be theoretically possible with a modified client. But in practice you’d filter a lot of genuinely active users out, and still let a lot of those suspicious accounts in. Sadly I think that blocking them individually is a better approach, even if a bit more laborious.
On a lighter note, this sort of user isn’t a big deal here in Lemmy. It’s simply more efficient to manipulate a larger userbase, like Twitter or Reddit.
Yeah, the peaks themselves and the quick (~2m) drop after them are not the big deal. The big deal is to slowly bleed users. It’s really problematic in the long term; by no means “MASTADON IS DOOMED!”, but more like “Mastodon, you need to step your game up.”
I wasn’t aware of the connection with the band - thanks for the info! Still, people are bound to associate “mastodon” first and foremost with the critter.
Either way, back in 2008 I bet people were making fun of Twitter for being named after bird sounds, so.
I don’t remember but you’re likely correct. There’s a difference though - Twitter didn’t need to capitalise on every single tiny advantage, Mastodon does it, and while the role of branding might be small it still gives you (or your competitors) some edge.
A model that explains well half of the data is as useful as a coin toss. But let’s roll with it, and pretend that we got two superimposed Gartner cycles here.
The trough would be reached after a sharp drop after the peak, and based on the first peak it would be ~2 months long. That would explain only the period between 2023-07 and 2023-09; the rest of what I’ve pointed out in red is clearly something else, the nearest of what they look like would be a sick version of the “slope of enlightenment” - going down instead of up.
Yeah, the model doesn’t work.
A better way to approach this is to consider three things:
Once you notice those things, it gets really easy to explain what’s happening:
By analysing the data this way, not just we’re describing it better, but we can also see where Mastodon needs to improve:
What I’m saying also partially applies to the “Fediverse link aggregators”, like Lemmy. Lemmy does show some tendency to bleed users, but in smaller degree than Mastodon; but it’s in a better position because there’s only one big competitor, and it keeps fucking it up over and over.
Context for other users - the user above is likely referring to the Gartner cycle:
As anyone here can see, it looks nothing like that pattern that I’ve highlighted.
If the success condition for Mastodon is “to become a long-term viable and attractive alternative to corporate-owned microblogging”, then improvements of the platform are necessary.
To be clear on my opinion in this matter: I want to see Mastodon to succeed, I want to see X and Threads closing down, and IDGAF about Bluesky. However I’m not too eager to engage in wishful belief and pretend that everything is fine - because acknowledging the problem is always the first step to solve it.
First, I will accept the data of the chart at face value, it seems resonably accurate and I don’t have any other data to work off of.
If you do find another source of data, please post it. Relying on a single source (like the Fediverse Observer) is problematic, I know.
To me the declining slopes after the sruges are not relevant to any long term conclusions, they follow a highly predictable curve and doesn’t mean much.
You’re conflating the sharp drops after the surges with the declining slopes.
The sharp drops (like MAU from 12/2022 to 02/2023) go as you said, they don’t mean much. However, the declining slopes are relevant - they span across multiple months (up to ten), and show that Mastodon userbase has a consistent tendency to shrink.
If you look at the end of the graphs you can even see it growing slightly, that is obviously not evidence of anything yet, but to me it is an indication of either a start of another surge, or stability.
We’ll only know if it’s an indication of a surge (sudden influx of new users), or growth (slow influx), or stability in the future. For now it’s an isolated data point.
I believe you are too quick at spreading doom for Mastodon
I’m saying that Mastodon is struggling. I did not say that Mastodon is doomed.
The difference is important here because a struggling network can be still saved, while a doomed one can’t.
Let’s see:
Network effect hits Mastodon specially hard as it competes not just with Twitter, but also Threads and Bluesky. In those situations, a smaller userbase means that people will outright ignore you as an option.
The way that federation was implemented; as linearchaos mentioned in another thread, if you settle in a smaller instance (the “right” thing to do), you won’t get “good collections of off node traffic”. So it creates a situation where, if you know how federation works you’ll avoid big instances, and worsen your own experience; and if you don’t, well, Mastodon’s big selling point goes down the drain.
Federation itself introduces a complexity cost. That’s unavoidable and the benefits of federation outweigh the cost by far; however, the cost is concrete while the bigger benefit is far more abstract.
Branding issues. Other users already mentioned it, but you don’t sell a novel tech named after an extinct animal.
And this is just conjecture from my part, but I think that microblogging is becoming less popular than it used to be; people who like short content would rather go watch a TikTok video, and people who want well-thought content already would rather read a “proper” blog instead.
On a lighter side: the very fact that we’re using the ActivityPub now helps Mastodon, even if we’re in different platforms (like Lemmy, MBin, PieFed, SubLinks). Due to how federation works, you’re bound to see someone in Mastodon sharing content with those forums and vice versa; it could be a bit less clunky but it’s still more content for both sides.
On the text: I think that the author reached the right conclusion through the wrong reasoning. The activity peaks don’t matter that much, when there’s a huge influx of users you’re bound to see some leaving five minutes later. The reason why Mastodon is struggling is this:
See those slopes down? They show that the stable userbase is shrinking. Even users engaged enough with the platform are slowly leaving, but newbies who could fill their place aren’t popping up.
I’d say that it’s possible but extremely unlikely. Acc. to Doctorow enshittification requires three things:
The Fediverse is designed in a way that it’s more resistant to #2, as inter-operability decreases the cost of switch for users - if you see an entity (person, corporation, group, whatever) twiddling too much it’s relatively painless to pack your things and leave.
However, I believe that if an instance consolidated so much power in #1 that it’s enable to enforce an “it’s me or them” on the users, even the Fediverse could be enshittified. And by “so much power” I don’t mean something like Lemmy World, I mean a couple orders of magnitude bigger than the rest.
If you speak Portuguese maybe.
I did some tests here, setting up my browser config to show content preferably in Italian, then German, then Portuguese, then English. It showed something like 5~10 posts in English for each post in Portuguese. (No content was shown in either Italian or German, so odds are that Bluesky doesn’t even take the browser config into account.)
Granted, for most Portuguese speakers it should be 7:00 now, so it might be worth repeating the test for the later afternoon, dunno, 18:00 or so. Or in the weekend.
So this is just another part in reducing cost on section that doesn’t produce money.
That’s what I immediately thought - they’re cutting corners to decrease dependency of googlebux, as depending on how things go those bux will go dry.
I’m aware of the site:example.com google feature. And, while useful for users who already know about Lemmy, it doesn’t help to recruit new users, and that’s a main point of the OP.
About centralisation: that “yet” is key. Putting all your eggs in the same basket is not a bad thing… until someone drops the basket, you know?
I’ve seen your post. Ouch - you stumbled upon some nasty circlejerking there. On multiple levels.
Plenty people here expect you to treat their “vision” as above everything else. Including your agency (“free will”), issues that you might want to solve, etc. That makes them unable to tell the difference between “criticising Apple” (a fair thing to do) versus “treating someone who bought an iPhone as an emissary of Satan” (what they’re doing against you).
To make things worse plenty muppets there are putting words in your mouth, regarding Samsung vs. Apple.
If it’s any consolation, it isn’t just Lemmy. The whole internet of the 20s feels like this nowadays.
TL;DR: I know that feel, bro.
The “instances hosting communities” structure alleviates albeit not solves this problem; communities about related topics end in the same instances, that you can block.
I mostly agree with the OP, it would be great if Lemmy had more sources of newbies than just “pissed off redditors”. (I have further reasons for that, but they don’t matter here.) As such I’ll focus on specific tidbits here and there.
The content is indexable (by Google), but your point stands as it sucks. It’s hard to reliably find Lemmy content by it.
Do you - or anyone here - have a good idea on how to solve that? Someone suggested a Lemmy-based engine; it’s tempting but it wouldn’t help if the person doesn’t know about Lemmy already.
Reddit is not something you discover from word-of-mouth or join from peer pressure
It used to be like this. “Stumbling” upon the site was only a thing later, as it had already enough content to become a source of info.
Even taking only English speakers into account, it isn’t a bad name. It’s a simple word, it sounds like “let me” (good association - unlike… GIMP), at most it might evoke you Lemmings.
And once considering other languages it’s actually better than plenty brands out there, including Reddit, Facebook or Twitter. By sticking to CV syllables there’s less room to butcher it into unrecognisability.
It’s also missing IMO some mass to discuss more specific topics. For example, there’s enough people to discuss “anime” or “games”, but too few to discuss a specific anime series, or a specific game.
That’ll get better in time too, I believe.
I see this as a small victory for the Fediverse.
I’ve always wanted to ask such a person what their deal is.
I can’t answer for other people but I’m probably in the “low attitude” group, since my older account is at -9% and the current one at +42%. And at least for me it’s the result of two factors.
One of them is that old Reddit habits die hard. In Reddit I used to have uBlock Origin hiding the voting buttons from the platform, as a way to avoid contributing with it altogether except in ways that subjectively benefitted me, such as commenting (as I’m verbose, I feel good writing). The exception to the above was typically things so stupid/reddit-like/idiotic that I couldn’t help but downvote.
Another is that my “core” values is rather different from what most people in social networks value. As such, a lot of posts/comments are from my PoV overrated (that get downvoted) or underrated (that get upvoted). And due to sorting algorithms I’m seeing high score comments more often, so this yields a higher amount of downvotes.
Ah, that explains it.
It’s kind of funny because when I used the word “building” the first thing that came to my mind was the server as a house - like, you’re building a digital home for a bunch of people. So the idea was in the opposite direction as yours. Just language things.
I like this piece. Well-thought, and well laid out.
I do believe that mods getting weathered, as OP outlined, is part of the issue. I’m not sure on good ways to solve this, but introducing a few barriers of entry here and there might alleviate it. We just need to be sure that those barriers actually sort good newbies in and bad newbies out, instead of simply locking everyone out. Easier said than done.
Another factor is that moderator work grows faster than community size; you get more threads, each with more activity, users spend more time in your community, they’re from more diverse backgrounds so more likely to disagree, forest fires spread faster so goes on. This is relevant here because communities nowadays tend to be considerably bigger than in the past; and, well, when you got more stuff to do, you tend to do things in a sloppier way.
You can recruit more mods, of course; but mod team size is also a problem, as it’s harder to get everyone in the same page and enforce rules consistently. If one mod is rather lax and another is strict, you get some people getting away doing worse than someone else who got banned, and that makes the whole mod team look powertripping and picking favourites, when it isn’t. (I’m not sure on how to solve this problem besides encouraging people to migrate to smaller communities, once they feel like the ones that they are in are too big.)