Mastodon CEO Eugen Rochko has spoken out about the significant moderation changes announced by Meta on Tuesday, which will see the social networking giant
I find it funny how every time an oligarch owned platform starts getting popular people start screeching about Fediverse losing momentum. Yet, every few years these platforms inevitably start doing things that horrify their users and we see another exodus to open platforms happen.
I’m convinced its a combination of media silence on the fediverse (so most people don’t know about it as an alternative), and younger audiences who don’t know the history.
Because I can’t imagine why grown adults who know the history of these companies, would do the goofy I’ll fkn do it again meme, ten times in a row.
Relative obscurity is an aspect of it for sure, and I imagine networking effects are a big part of it as well. Accounts with a lot of followers tend to drive where people migrate. When a big account leaves twitter to bluesky they can pull thousands or even millions of users along with them. Meanwhile, people moving to Fediverse end up having to abandon a lot of the people they were following as a result. It’s also a lot easier for an account to grow on a centralized platform which is another reinforcing factor here.
Seems like those big accounts always choose to go from corporate platform to another corporate platform. They almost never choose to move to the fediverse.
I suspect it’s because it’s easier to have a mass following on a centralized platform. A federated platform will inherently be at odds with that. I personally don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing either as it makes the Fediverse unattractive to commercial interests and marketers.
I agree, but I don’t think we’re in the cycle just yet, it feels like there’s a big tipping point we’re about to reach in the western owned social medium.
It’s possible that we’ll hit a point of critical mass where Fediverse becomes the dominant social media platform, but I don’t think explosive growth is necessary either. Growth for the sake of growth holds little inherent value. Unlike commercial platforms reliant on VC funding to survive, Fediverse thrives on sustainability. What really matters is that there are enough developers to maintain the platforms, people to host the servers, and users to create content. With these elements in place, platforms like Lemmy and Mastodon can continue indefinitely without the need to attract users at a rapid pace.
In fact, rapid growth could do more harm than good. A sudden influx of users often brings toxic behaviors. When new users trickle in slowly, they adapt to the existing norms and culture of the community. But when a horde arrives, they risk overwhelming and reshaping the community in ways that trample over its core values. A steady stream of users allows for organic integration, preserving the essence of what makes sites like Lemmy pleasant.
Unlike commercial platforms, open-source projects don’t rely on profit motives to survive. They’re driven by people who directly benefit from their work and are passionate about their vision. When disagreements arise, projects can be forked, allowing different groups to take them in new directions. Even if a project is abandoned, it can be revived by a new team as long as there’s a dedicated community. This flexibility and resilience make open source inherently more sustainable than commercial platforms, which can vanish overnight if funding dries up.
The Fediverse, and Lemmy within it, only needs a large enough user base to remain self-sustaining. I’d argue that it’s already well past that threshold. There’s no rush to grow rapidly. Steady progress ensures the community retains its identity and values, while the open-source nature of the platform guarantees its longevity. Lemmy isn’t just another platform; it’s a sustainable, adaptable ecosystem built to endure. I’m willing to bet that Lemmy will still be around long after sites like Reddit crumble to dust.
I find it funny how every time an oligarch owned platform starts getting popular people start screeching about Fediverse losing momentum. Yet, every few years these platforms inevitably start doing things that horrify their users and we see another exodus to open platforms happen.
I’m convinced its a combination of media silence on the fediverse (so most people don’t know about it as an alternative), and younger audiences who don’t know the history.
Because I can’t imagine why grown adults who know the history of these companies, would do the goofy I’ll fkn do it again meme, ten times in a row.
Relative obscurity is an aspect of it for sure, and I imagine networking effects are a big part of it as well. Accounts with a lot of followers tend to drive where people migrate. When a big account leaves twitter to bluesky they can pull thousands or even millions of users along with them. Meanwhile, people moving to Fediverse end up having to abandon a lot of the people they were following as a result. It’s also a lot easier for an account to grow on a centralized platform which is another reinforcing factor here.
Seems like those big accounts always choose to go from corporate platform to another corporate platform. They almost never choose to move to the fediverse.
I suspect it’s because it’s easier to have a mass following on a centralized platform. A federated platform will inherently be at odds with that. I personally don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing either as it makes the Fediverse unattractive to commercial interests and marketers.
I agree, but I don’t think we’re in the cycle just yet, it feels like there’s a big tipping point we’re about to reach in the western owned social medium.
It’s possible that we’ll hit a point of critical mass where Fediverse becomes the dominant social media platform, but I don’t think explosive growth is necessary either. Growth for the sake of growth holds little inherent value. Unlike commercial platforms reliant on VC funding to survive, Fediverse thrives on sustainability. What really matters is that there are enough developers to maintain the platforms, people to host the servers, and users to create content. With these elements in place, platforms like Lemmy and Mastodon can continue indefinitely without the need to attract users at a rapid pace.
In fact, rapid growth could do more harm than good. A sudden influx of users often brings toxic behaviors. When new users trickle in slowly, they adapt to the existing norms and culture of the community. But when a horde arrives, they risk overwhelming and reshaping the community in ways that trample over its core values. A steady stream of users allows for organic integration, preserving the essence of what makes sites like Lemmy pleasant.
Unlike commercial platforms, open-source projects don’t rely on profit motives to survive. They’re driven by people who directly benefit from their work and are passionate about their vision. When disagreements arise, projects can be forked, allowing different groups to take them in new directions. Even if a project is abandoned, it can be revived by a new team as long as there’s a dedicated community. This flexibility and resilience make open source inherently more sustainable than commercial platforms, which can vanish overnight if funding dries up.
The Fediverse, and Lemmy within it, only needs a large enough user base to remain self-sustaining. I’d argue that it’s already well past that threshold. There’s no rush to grow rapidly. Steady progress ensures the community retains its identity and values, while the open-source nature of the platform guarantees its longevity. Lemmy isn’t just another platform; it’s a sustainable, adaptable ecosystem built to endure. I’m willing to bet that Lemmy will still be around long after sites like Reddit crumble to dust.