I'm more worried about the plastic, pesticides, degraded pharmaceuticals and heavy metals myself

Here's the thing - we've been raised from birth to think "people don't make things, companies do".

Most people have never used software that isn't company branded, they've never sat in a chair made by someone they know, they've never pulled food out of the ground. Almost all jobs set someone up doing a service with a supply chain behind them or doing one small step of something bigger.

It's learned helplessness. They don't have the concept of how they could do things outside of the hierarchy - solid chance they've tried, and since their skills are hyper-specialized and rely on big, expensive tools, they found they had a lot of gaps.

Anything you do outside of a company is a hobby to most people. And even then, people organize into sports leagues and buy fancy toys instead of just meeting up in the park with a ball... Do you really need to play by professional rulesets when you're just trying to exercise?

This time around, I didn't bother to explain why the decentralization is so important to my friends and family - even the technical ones are almost afraid of the idea of it.

Instead, I told them about the ways Reddit has picked up the harmful strategy that Facebook used, and that makes mobile gaming so addicting yet so unfulfilling: show them less of the content they want to change the reward schedule, training you to use the app longer for a smaller dopamine hit. Show you content that will make you feel angry, driving up engagement. And most importantly, always wave the promise of another dopamine hit.

The app is eggregious - it sprinkles in stuff from top communities I left a long time ago because they suck, it gives you suggestions for new communities and presents them like interaction from other users, and it sends you notifications to tempt you back in all the time.

And this is just the beginning, it's going to get a lot worse With all the other social networks eyeing their own strategies to squeeze their users, it's going to suck across the board, and good luck trying to build relationships outside these platforms

I think it's important to remember we're animals, and we're not just trainable, we're the most trainable by a large margin. The best of us have just a handful of moments where we see beyond our instincts and conditioning, and decide to train ourselves

This project is important, because it can give us back communities small enough to get to know each other, while providing a larger forum for ideas, and with a design that can shrug off attempts to control it.

It's going to fragment. Sections of it will break off into echo chambers, admins will sell out their users, and parts will offer a curated walked garden hosted. But it can survive all that because of one simple truth - unless one person captures the majority of the network, they're going to have to cut off the best part of the network. Social media can be profitable without sucking, but to rake in profits it has to suck - and even then, we can start up servers for friends and family, and rebuild the network organically

I'm working for an app streamlined enough I can send it to my mom and have her sign up without getting scared off, and I think I've got a solid idea of how to improve discovery of communities without becoming distributed rather than decentralized. Other people are building their own visions of what this can become, and a lot of people are writing impressive code (Lemmy has no business scaling as well as it has), and the beauty of it is that it all competes while adding to the whole.

I've been at it for 30 hours now, but I can't shake the feeling that me getting this out this out in the next few days is going to matter if this is going to become what I hope instead of another shard of Reddit.

But every time I step away to take a breather, I end up back on here and see a glimpse of what this could be

The only way to change the world is to release something self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing and intrinsically positive, and hope it grows

My theory? It's Musk.

He's going around saying he only lost bots and scammers, that he's made Twitter profitable, and that advertisers are back and happier than ever

He isn't showing his numbers and there's no way his claims are true, but he's saying what they all want to hear. "Don't worry guys, you can squeeze your users for cash hard as you want, and they might grumble about it but they'll soon come crawling back"

There's also increased pressure to become profitable ASAP, much of it is likely due to the economy, but Musk lying through his teeth is probably getting to the other billionaires. It's worth mentioning, if you're a billionaire the only reason to still care about money is for bragging rights

You underestimate the power of addiction.

The official app isn't a bad thing because it's buggy and has ads, that sucks but I've used much worse apps that offer less. The amount of ads and how easy they are to click accidentally is ridiculous though

It's bad because it's built to do what Facebook did - it always gives you something to see and a reason to keep going. Have a nice, curated mix of science and shit posts? Let's throw some crap from the front page in there along with the ads! No one responded to your comments? We'll make suggestions look like someone is interacting with you! Haven't used the app in a few hours? Here's some posts delivered in a notification to get you back in there

I left Facebook for Reddit because I realized I didn't really enjoy it and often ended up feeling worse after using, and when the experiments they were doing came out I payed close attention. It was a real slap in the face when I saw Reddit doing similar stuff, and I checked out alternatives like tildes but nothing else was scratching the itch so I put it on the back burner.

For those of us who aren't going back, this wakeup call was a blessing. It's a strong reminder that corporations not only don't care about us, they can't - they might act friendly sometimes, but they wouldn't hesitate to poison the water supply if they thought it would bring greater profits

It's like when you let kids vote on what to do for the school faire.

Not only will the teacher and school change the result if they don't like the winning suggestion, you also can't vote to do nothing or protest the event

It's just a way to give you the illusion of autonomy to boost engagement. It's only a choice between the decisions they find (more or less) equally acceptable

I like the game grumps and Lex Fridman. The documentaries are cool, but I have to watch them in a different container or YouTube will start feeding me 30 minute ads or rants that sound reasonable but are super bigoted and flawed when you actually think about it

Reddit meant more to me than anything else I do online, and I committed to leaving it behind even before I found Lemmy... YouTube is barely worth it even without the ads. And I've got a whole fediverse of video content to investigate

I like multis and I think discoveribility is a bottleneck, but I'm very wary of this idea. If you merge communities together like this, you essentially multiply the users in that community. Moderation isn't 4 small instances anymore - it's one large one with 4 separate mod teams each handling a quarter of the posts

I think this is more likely to lead to polarization and eventually echo chambers than if you kept them separate - outrage drives engagement more than anything else, and explosive growth is a great way for a fraction of the group to dominate the first few pages of comments, which turns off moderate voices, which works like confirmation bias to make the outraged believe they're the prevailing voice of the community, which again drives them to post more incendiary comments, and the whole thing spirals

If you want to avoid echo chambers, the best way is to throw a small group together and make them get along through mods that are involved in the community

But then you'd probably end up with most members of one community slowly joining the rest, which is a healthier growth model, but still not great

My intuition is that the ideal solution involves encouraging users to join a single smaller group, but being exposed to top posts from sister groups to avoid fomo. Possibly through something like the way Reddit handled crossposts, where you get the post but not the comments, and a small link to the discussion in other communities. It could be automated if the post crossed a certain threshold of votes, keyed to a certain deviation above the daily average of the original group and optionally with a minimum up/down vote ratio.

This would help keep moderation ahead of participation, and hopefully build a tighter knit community - people are less willing to be jerks to people they recognize than strangers you get in a larger population. By encouraging users into one small random group instead of shopping around for the one that best fits their view, I think we could resist natural grouping by beliefs.

To go further, if this works we could consider a mechanism for "mitosis", a splitting of a group when the mod team feels the culture of the group is getting past their ability to manage in a nuanced way

The goal is decentralization after all, not distributed centralized groups

I think you're 100% right, but frankly this issue is more important than just a nice home for us

Social networks are being pressured to start extracting value with interest rates no longer being nil, and their efforts aren't just inconvenient, they're bad for mental health.

And how long until they start selling control over debate to the highest bidder? Musk has pretty explicitly gone over plans to do exactly that - he wants to charge per-user to send out tweets to your subscribers. He says there would be a large limit before you have to start paying, but this is a great way to control voices that rise out of the crowd

Social media has been a disaster, but there's no putting it back in the box - it's the primary way we communicate. It's terrible for mental health and can be leveraged as a tool of control, so a decentralized system is very important right now

That being said, I think it'd be great if the fediverse encorages fragmented groups instead of a main subject monolith and refugees in fringe groups - smaller communities are just healthier and more fulfilling

Hey server buddy!

I think it's a mindset - with a company at the head, if you don't like the product, you should complain.

They need to understand this isn't a product - it's a project. It's not mature yet, and it's trying to solve a very difficult problem - how do you make social media healthier and more resistant to exploitation. The design they've settled on is complex and ambitious, and I'm pretty impressed it's been able to scale up this well

All that being said, the main complaint I've noticed (and I think is valid and it often gets dismissed) - to sign up users are given a choice (which server to join), and to make an informed choice there's a minimum of a few pages of required reading

It definitely matters, and the way you're presented this choice is pretty overwhelming

I'm working on a Lemmy client, and my thought is this - break up the options. Give users a choice of 3-5 options with a "next" button and a search option.

Another is the difficulty of finding and subscribing to communities - I've noticed a huge improvement with some recent changes, but there's always more that can be done

Anything else you've noticed? Particularly if it's something to keep in mind as I write the app

What you're describing is polarization within a community transforming it into an echo chamber, driving out much of the community. Sure, truechildfree formed out of people who still wanted a community based around that aspect of themselves, but they're not the reason for the split - they're a symptom. For every user that made the journey to truechildfree, there's probably 3-10 that just unsubbed, and another 5 that just stopped participating

My personal example is AITA. It started off as a group judgement based on the morality of the situation, but in the last few years people have become obsessed with "rights". I actually got tempbanned for a situation where a douche told a woman that by joining trivia night in a small town bar she was ruining guys night. I responded to someone saying "IDK why your bf wasn't happy about how you handled it", and I basically said "yeah, he's the asshole, but clearly this is extremely important to him, and saying screw you I have every right to be here while he storms out didn't just ruin his night, it soured the evening for his friends who tried to stop him. That's not going to make you any friends in your new town, and a little compassion could've diffused the situation". It's hard to put into words (and that's just the most salient example, I probably got more negative karma there than everywhere else put together), but the community moved from what's the right thing to do into what's your legal rights

As far as I know, there's no trueAITA - the community just morphed into something I find toxic. The nuance was gone, and it became something very different to the sub I loved participating in. I almost unsubbed, but instead I mostly just would start writing a comment before deleting it and moving on.

I think fractured, smaller communities help with this more than anything. Humans generally adjust their morality based on their peers - and the bigger the community, the more the loudest voices begin to feel like they're expressing the opinion of the majority.

If 10% of a large community upvotes a certain viewpoint, it takes all of the top slots. It's a weakness of the popularity-based ranking system - a relatively small voting block easily dominates the discussion. The moderates just ignore it, because they disagree but not enough to actually fight it out

But force people together in a smaller, more diverse group, and they moderate each other. The trick is, you can't do it through polarization - you can't fragment a community based on beliefs or you get echo chambers.

You just have to throw people together and make them talk it out. Opinions naturally balance towards the mean when the groups are smaller, and the most cohesive voices dominate when the group becomes large

Because we have an absurd monetary system.

Companies also need to "grow or die", the capital holders don't want to invest in a sustainable company that turns reliable profits - they want line curve up

Reddit probably took on loans and additional investments to push towards growth plans, like the website redesign or marketing. They might've bought fancy office space to look the part, and bought big booths at conventions.

And maybe it all even worked - but the pressure is always going to be "take more loans and try to grow even faster" - not "pay off the principal so your monthly payments go down". After all, if you double in size, paying off the loan would be trivial

Except the way our systems are set up, you have to keep growing until you can't - at that point, you pop and deflate into a shell of what you were

It's seriously disturbing from a mental health perspective. They're doing exactly the same things Facebook did that made it most damaging

The app always gives you something, it will add filler (in the form of front-page content) to your feed, changing the reward schedule and (very literally) training you to doom scroll longer with fewer posts you actually care about. It also gives the opportunity to shove something controversial in your face, which drives outrage based engagement

It also always gives you messages - if you didn't get actual replies, it gives you sub suggestions or puts random posts in your notifications to try to get you back in the app

They also been doing A/B testing to try to maximize in-app time

It's a literal recipe for addiction