It’s funny when armchair experts insist that the fediverse won’t catch on because “federation is too hard to understand” when arguably the most widespread communication system on the internet follows the same model

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    19 days ago

    Yeah and then google+microsoft rolled in and killed the decentralized nature of email with gmail and outlook.

    Only sign left of the good ol days is merged accounts with @ old domain names and the few that self host.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      It’s not really like they were evil about it though. Google attracted customers through its huge (at the time) 1 GB email storage space, which at the time, was unbelievably generous and also impressive in that it was offered for free. Outlook (Hotmail at the time) also drew in customers by offering the service for free, anywhere in the world, without needing to sign up for Internet service. Remember, at the time, e-mail was a service that was bundled with your Internet service provider.

      Into the mid-2000s and 2010s, the way that Gmail and Outlook kept customers was through bundle deals for enterprise customers and improvements to their webmail offerings. Gmail had (and arguably, still has) one of the best webmail clients available anywhere. Outlook was not far behind, and it was also usually bundled with enterprise Microsoft Office subscriptions, so most companies just decided, “eh, why not”. The price (free) and simplicity is difficult to beat. It was at that point that Microsoft Outlook (the mail client, not the e-mail service) was the “gold standard” for desktop mail clients, at least according to middle-aged office workers who barely knew anything about e-mail to begin with. Today, the G-Suite, as it is called, is one of the most popular enterprise software suites, perhaps second only to Microsoft Office. Most people learned how to use e-mail and the Internet in the 2000s and 2010s through school or work.

      You have to compare the offerings of Google and Microsoft with their competitors. AOL mail was popular but the Internet service provided by the same company was not. When people quit AOL Internet service, many switched e-mail providers as well, thinking that if they did not maintain their AOL subscription, they would lose access to their mailbox as well.

      Google and Microsoft didn’t “kill” the decentralised e-mail of yesteryear. They beat it fair and square by offering a superior product. If you’re trying to pick an e-mail service today, Gmail and Outlook are still by far the best options in terms of ease of use, free storage, and the quality of their webmail clients. I would even go so far as to say that the Gmail web client was so good that it single-handedly killed the desktop mail client for casual users. I think that today, there are really only three legitimate players left if you’re a rational consumer who is self-interested in picking the best e-mail service for yourself: Proton Mail if you care a lot about privacy, and Gmail or Outlook if you don’t.

      • unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 days ago

        Google and Microsoft didn’t “kill” the decentralised e-mail of yesteryear. They beat it fair and square

        Sure, they might’ve cornered the market fair and square, but they’re certainly doing anticompetitive things in keeping it cornered.

        Just try setting up a mail server not connected to any of the big corpos (Google, MS, Cloudflare or their clients with more niche marketing) and see who will actually recieve your mails. You most likely won’t land into the Spam folder either.

      • Flatfire@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        It is also worth considering that yes, MS and Google have definitely dominated the market through superior products, but the standards they’ve pushed for and established have also made it difficult for other players to enter. If we wanted to say that the federated nature of email is dead, I think that’s a fair argument still.

        Hosting your own email server is quite difficult. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to land in anyone’s mailbox without assistance. If you want to make a mailing list, you basically need to use a mailing service, lest you get blacklisted by major systems owned by MS and Google. Much of this is a byproduct of spam, by which I don’t blame Google and MS for doing their best to protect against, but at the same time they have more or less neutered some core aspects of what made email accessible.

  • doctortran@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    It’s funny when armchair experts insist that the fediverse won’t catch on because “federation is too hard to understand” when arguably the most widespread communication system on the internet follows the same model

    Because you don’t need to understand email to use it.

    There have been decades of software and user interface advancements that have made the usage of email extremely simple and straightforward.

    People also inherently grasp the idea of it because they understand the real world concept of mail.

    Email is also one way. You aren’t sending mail to and receiving mail from everyone at once, or reading mail one person sent to another and interjecting. You’re just sending something to an address, not CC’ing literally everyone all the time.

    Email also doesn’t have any confusion around which mailboxes are allowed to speak to each other.

    The fediverse is nowhere near that simple or intuitive.

    Particularly Lemmy because Lemmy admins have fundamentally broken the idea of federation with defederation. It generally doesn’t matter what email you use or what email the receiver uses, baring more niche services. It does actually matter what instance you’re on.

    We try to sell people on this comparison, try to explain to them that it’s simple, but it’s really a half-truth at best, or a lie at worst.

    When you joined reddit, you know for a fact you’re seeing everything, and the same thing as everyone else. The same posts, the same comments, the same vote counts. A simple, shared, unfiltered experience of everything was the default, and then you shaped it yourself.

    That’s not the case with the fediverse. There’s no simple default. You have to build it yourself.

    • CrayonMaster@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      I would argue that you really don’t need to understand lemmy to use it either, that’s a cultural issue with lemmy users.

      Always remember that someone is in the days 10000!

  • Wolfram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 days ago

    Federation really isn’t hard to understand especially when you dive in and start using it. I don’t understand anyone who says otherwise.

    Somehow this sentiment exists in the selfhosted subreddit and is why the community didn’t move to Lemmy. One of the last places I’d expect to let something kinda technical scare them tbh.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      It’s an excuse, people don’t want to just say they don’t want to do it, so they make an excuse not to, saying it’s ““complicated””. They don’t feel like it or hate it for some irrational reason, possibly a misconception or just hate change.

      If you see someone making excuses like this, or even casually making fun of the idea of decentralization and the fediverse, challenge them on it, point out how they are making excuses simply because they don’t want to do it, or say no. Ask them how it is “complicated” and make them give an explanation. 90% of the people I’ve done this with couldn’t come up with one and just acted embarrassed after, because they couldn’t come up with one. It’s a mindless excuse.

    • rmuk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      “Federation” is like “non-fungible token”. Everyone knows what it is, but they’ve never heard it called that.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    Now if government officials start accepting a fediverse based communication, I will create a separate instance for that and it will be totally safe for work, only used for communications with the government.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    i feel like the newsgroups could also be pegged as an early distributed/mass-audience environment similar to what we see today… multiple nodes sharing sometimes identical loads of content

    i miss tagline management… bluewave

    e. ALso! the star trek nonsense was strong with alt.wesly.crusher.die.die.die!

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      Yeah, Usenet was where it was at back at the turn of the millennium. Then again, I had access through a university. Access wasn’t free outside of places like that.

      ISPs were spotty on coverage because even at that time, they needed at least a terabyte of storage to dedicate to it, and still not be able to cover everything that was on there. Of course, they might’ve got away with less if they decided not to carry the binaries newsgroups…

      The way it worked was a lot like how Fediverse federation works now, or similarly, filesharing. It was possible to be reading a thread of messages and the older ones wouldn’t be available on your local/ISP news server because their space had been recycled for newer data.

      If you were lucky, your attempt to access that message might cause your host to grab it on a future request to upstream hosts or peers, but some Usenet messages are completely lost to time because everyone purged them.

      Google buying Dejanews, the largest archive of all messages, and merging it with the travesty that was (and still is) Google Groups just about killed the whole thing.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        ISP around me had policies like “we can provide Usenet except for the binaries trees”

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      It was.

      In fact, for about 3 weeks, Facebook and gtalk could exchange message seamlessly and easily over their fed gateway and xmpp.

      Seeing a problem with this, FB changed. With it being at least 4.5 weeks since the last complete redesign incompatible with the old, Google also changed to something that sucked.

          • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            18 days ago

            Technically, whatsapp, telegram, signal, even the chat of some online games are XMPP, but the servers are closed to be able to interact with other ones so they can become a monopoly…

            • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              18 days ago

              That doesn’t mean it isn’t an open standard, that means they are using it as a closed system. This isn’t a case of XMPP not being open, it’s a case of servers using it choosing not to be open. Therefore the problem isn’t XMPP not being open, it’s services themselves not being open. As an example Reddit uses Matrix in their awful chats function, but you can’t message other matrix users there or message reddit users from Matrix. That doesn’t make Matrix not open, it means someone is using it in a way that isn’t open to others.

  • iconic_admin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    This used to be true. However in the internet of today, if your email doesn’t come from a Microsoft or a google it will get rejected if the recipient is a Microsoft or google email address. They have taken over.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    … but lemmy and masto do completely different things

    masto’s a microblogging platform like twitter and lemmy is a link aggregator like reddit

    honestly i kinda wish there were a rebuild of email that is compatible with the old system but was redesigned from the ground up to do the job better

    • rustydomino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      I’m not technical enough to think it through carefully but I’ve always thought there was an opportunity for an organization like USPS to develop email 2.0 - something that gives people some kind of verifiable and secure email address so that users can easily find each other whilst filtering out spam (or to have spam taken into consideration in the design at the outset). You would design it based on strict standards that would be difficult to get around so that big tech could not easily co-opt it, and adopt for some kind of critical function (taxes, voting maybe?) so that it would encourage adoption en masse. Make it distributed so that users can selfhost it easily, safely, and securely.

      • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Yeah man if I were in charge of the post office I’d definitely push for that AND the return of postal banking. Every post office in the United States would be your one stop service for this email so if there are authentication issues or anything you can actually go there and talk to a PERSON, IN-PERSON.

        You would use this system specifically for official government correspondence, and also it’d be better for job seeking too - any situation where you need to be communicating as YOURSELF, fully verified.

        I’d even throw in social media features. Forums, microblogging, live chat groups… however, everyone’s identity is clear and certain. No anonymity here. There is privacy insofar as what’s between you and the government stays between you and the government, but if you want anonymity and to express opinions without someone knowing who you are, that’s to be done elsewhere.

        Instead of a social media website that lies to you and pretends dishonestly to give you privacy, this would have to be up front about the fact that it’s public property. A town square where you’re wearing a name tag. If you don’t want your neighbors knowing your rhetorical positions, post them elsewhere. Those other places, private services, and important and need to exist as counterbalance.

        I’m sure many criminals would be stupid enough to use it for human trafficking and contraband smuggling shit though so that’ll help uncover and discipline rogue elements.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 days ago

      What on earth are you talking about?? Of course they don’t have to compete. It’s a meme. It’s meant to be funny, not accurate. What does my ego have to do with anything?

  • vaguerant@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    I get the argument, but email is also very different to the kind of open-web network that the fediverse resides in. There are problems the fediverse faces which email doesn’t like discoverability. The emails either come to you or they don’t. With federated social media, you have to find the content you’re looking for first. Maybe you use a search engine, or somebody gives you a business card with their handle and instance, whatever. Then you have to figure out how to view those posts from your home instance if you want to actually interact in any way. There’s browser extensions and stuff which try to make this easier, but that’s another thing that has to be explained and set up, plus not everyone is visiting from a web browser with extension support, or a web browser at all for that matter.

    It’s not fundamentally impossible to understand the fediverse, but there’s more of a barrier than email, which can be explained in a single sentence like “Your email provider gives you a unique address that anybody else can send emails to and vice versa.” I don’t think convincing ourselves that the fediverse is actually very simple is going to convince people outside the bubble that that’s true.

    • lordnikon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      The point being made is really just the identity of user being tied to User@domain.tld vs @handle it seems like that concept has died with Web 2.0. Only thing I would improve of the fediverse. If communities could be merged with when a group of instances agree to form a network. Like how IRC does it with channels. I mean yeah there would be netsplits from time to time but it would cut down on duplication and increase the traffic of niche communities like the benefits of central platforms get but it’s still distributed.

    • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      convincing ourselves that the fediverse is actually very simple

      There’s a difference between ‘technically simple’ and ‘understandable UX’.

      Your mom doesn’t need to know how ActivityPub works or the intricacies of federation. She just needs to know to log in and go to c/cutecats.

      The early-adopter curse here is causing way too much technobabble to be involved in descriptions that just confuse people, and it’s technical aspects that the nerd cohort here is fascinated by, but uh, nobody else is.

      The real leap will be to resist the urge to pull out the PPT and spend 3 hours and 10,000 words explaining how Lemmy works vs the much more concise how-to-use-Lemmy details that people actually want.

      There’s a lot of assumptions being made by a lot of people that “normal” people are stupid and couldn’t understand ‘It’s a conversation platform like Reddit, but it’s run by it’s users and that’s why there’s a lot of servers who all talk to each other’ and so there’s a lot of hand wringing about how you have to explain all the details and such, which really, isn’t all that true.

      Every non-technical person I’ve explained it to like that immediately understands what it is, how you’d use it, and what it’s used for and I’ll occasionally get a ‘Oh, neat, how does all that work?’ question I can then expand on, but that’s like, maybe 1 out of 20.

      TLDR: too many details is not helpful for most people, and nerds loooooove going into more detail than anyone could possibly care about

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      I really wish email had a built-in aliases feature. Like, so you can create unlimited new addresses that just point to your normal inbox. That would help so much with spam, since you could just block individual aliases. I know some email providers have this feature, but usually it’s paid. Plus Addressing is also nice, but it does nothing to hide your “real” address. Also I’m disappointed that end-to-end encrypted email is basically never used by normal people.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    IIRC, ð USPS actually almost adopted a policy to just give everyone in ð country ðeir own email address once upon a time.