Number of subscribers is not that relevant as a metric. It's more interesting to see overall activity.
Isn’t it really expensive (in time or in money) to have all these instances?
These instances are cheap to operate because they don't have any users. They are all free to use and are not related to Communick, which provides accounts to the instances that accept accounts only for paying subscribers.
Yes, they are still running. alien.top has been blocked by some, but the topic-specific instances have no reason to be a source of issues.
Just think of it this way: as slow as the existing community is, the community you want to build is even further behind. If we join forces, we can go a lot further than by trying to keep things separate.
I'm running more than 15 instances for communities. I was running alien.top which at one point hosted 600k accounts with more than 2M posts + comments, a lot of them being sent to the topic-specific instances. I'm constantly reminding people that the instances are there, and that I can create communities for anyone that need it.
I just checked the first two pages (...) No Twitter thread, no Mastodon thread.
Cherry-picking data points is not the way to make an argument. That just makes you seem clueless and/or biased.
If you really want to refute my statement, you'll need to take a look at all submissions in the past two years and compare the number of posts to twitter vs the number of posts to any Mastodon instance.
I didn’t see a “call for more action” in that comment.
We have someone that wants to post more content and who is being told "don't do that. things here are slow. It's more than enough to have only 5 posts a day, more than that and you are spamming" and I am saying "No, it's not enough. We should be encouraging to have people posting more, not less."
Of course they are, the same way the vast majority of microblog users are still on Twitter compared to Mastodon.
I gave a very specific example to illustrate where Mastodon had become more relevant than Twitter. Again: it's not about absolute numbers.
I reply when I see absolutes such as “all communities on Lemmy are dead”, "all mods are bad ", “all communities are about politics”
I didn't make any of these statements
There is a big difference between "sweeping generalizations" and "categorically correct statements". The former are the statements you give as examples, but the latter can apply to the absolute majority of cases, even if someone has a data point ("the exception that proves the rule") in the contrary.
It paints the platform in a bad light
Why would you think that?
The original argument was "Communities don't need a lot of posting to survive here", and my response is basically saying "we should strive for more than surviving".
It seems like that instead of focusing on the part where I am calling for more action, you decided to focus on what you perceive as criticism and you try to attack that as soon as possible.
Stop using absolute statements and I’ll stop replying
It feels like your problem is not with the "absolute statements", but that you are doing your best to reject reality.
It doesn't matter if the number is 100% or 99% or 92.376%, what matters is that it has been two years since the Reddit boycott and we still do not have a good example of a thriving community here. We had many attempts (the /r/selfhosted people, the /r/blind), but they are by and large still on Reddit. Can you at least agree to that?
Seriously, though: why is it that you feel this intense urge to dismiss any and everything I am saying? Don't you think that is a little bit sad that all you can do is this mindless pontification?
However, is giving your credit card or bank transfer information to a website
You are not giving your payment information to the website. You'd be giving to a payment processor, which has to go through all the regulatory oversight. So, yes, I trust Stripe to handle my payment information more than I'd ever trust any random instance admin with my email.
You don’t need 5 posts a day for a community to survive here
"Surving" != "Thriving".
A couple of years ago, I noticed that the front page of HackerNews was consistently getting links from Mastodon posts. That was interesting because it showed that at least one significant part of the tech conversation had moved away from Twitter and into the Fediverse.
No such thing has happened for Lemmy. There is no particular community which is thriving. There is no example of subreddit community that had successfully boycotted Reddit and transplanted here. We have the usual handful of posters, each one trying to maintain their communities "alive", but that is far from its true potential.
My instance does not require email validation and so far I have zero spammers or bots. There is one thing I am doing different than everyone else. Can you guess what it is?
I've noticed you tend to always assume the worst before even trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
There are very legitimate reasons to not want to give your email to any random website that asks. They can be hacked, the instance might be a front for some data aggregator, etc. And if your response is "just use a masking service" or "just use a disposable email address", then what is the point of validating the email address in the first place?
Admins add email verification because this is one extra layer of protection against automated bots, but this is far from a guarantee they are protected. It might help them to give some paper trail in case someone does something nasty on their servers, but the best they can do is take an (easy to create) email address and report to the authorities along with the IP address.
Compare with an instance that only accepts paying members:
no bot or spammer will be interested in paying a few dollars per month to send messages
if some spammer is stupid enough to sign up to the service and sends clear spam, then we point the ToS to them, kick them out and they will be left without any money
we have a much stronger paper trail (credit card payments, bank transfers) in case some user does something nasty.
https://communick.news/ fits all you requirements regarding users - only paying members can join, so the instance is pretty much guaranteed to be protected from spammers and bots.
Regarding your communities: I really rather keep a strict separation between "instances for communities" and "instances for groups". The topic-specific instances I am running are meant for specific niches, but perhaps I can find one domain that can be used for more "generic" subjects. Would you be interested in that?
The problem then is that by responding, you’re engaging with it which typically helps it spread in the algorithms*
But then the solution is to fix "the algorithms". One more reason that I should say we should get rid of "votes" is that they are an artificial constraint created by the closed social media platforms that gate-keep and limit user choice. If "the alogorithms" are plentiful, easy to customize, and chosen by the user, then everyone is able to rank and sort the data as they see fit.
Removing downvotes and banning users who disagree is the typical cult strategy
The only ones with power to remove contents are moderators and admins. If moderation is transparent (as it should be), then it is easy to figure out if mods are are acting in good faith and according to the interests with the community. Then it is up to us as users to figure out if we should continue participating in that community or leave it behiind.
you can’t downvote just wrong information anymore.
If "wrong information" can be properly defined, then either you challenge it (by responding, calling it out) or by reporting it. Downvoting it just because it you think it is not appropriate is a recipe for creating echo chambers.
Do you think vote sould be private ? Public ? And why ?
Making them private is absolute idiotic. People participating in a discussion forum are willing to engage in a public conversation, if you are not willing to respond in public, then don't respond at all. And if you think that the original comment is in bad faith or harmful to the community, report it and move on.
Are you sastified with the current voting system ? And why ?
"Votes" are not real votes. It's just a terrible misnomer for "Liking" and "Disliking". I think we should get rid of votes altogether and use the real vocabulary.
I'd also would like a system where users could define their own scoring algorithm, and I would like to assign different weights depending on the person and the topic/community. I for one think that downvotes (dislikes) should only be counted if you are a member of the community and if you have made a positive contribution to the discussion.
What way do you imagine to highlight content and improve search, discoverability ?
I'd like to be able to follow people just to see what they are liking/commenting on. Also, given that this is a discussion forum, I wonder whether we could build a wiki-like system where people could annotate parts of a comment/post and challenge/elaborate/investigate specific parts of an statement. This could be used either for a "Change My View" style of discussion or even full-on adversarial collaboration projects.
Again, I'm sorry. This is not "optimism" but baseless wishful thinking.
If you want to talk about actual strategies to get people to see the value of a free Internet and how to educate them, I'm all ears. But I'm not interested in continuing the conversation if you are just arguing what you wish would happen.
rglullis @ rglullis @communick.news Posts 39Comments 1,808Joined 2 yr. ago
Number of subscribers is not that relevant as a metric. It's more interesting to see overall activity.
These instances are cheap to operate because they don't have any users. They are all free to use and are not related to Communick, which provides accounts to the instances that accept accounts only for paying subscribers.
If you are asking if I am making lots of money with this, the answer is no. I am doing it now because I think it's the only way to make it fair and sustainable.