Let me present my take on why the federated alternatives struggle to replace X:
Twitter didn't succeed because it was a particularly good solution - it really isn't. It succeeded purely on the back of the network effect.
When every open-source alternative simply copies the existing restrictions without adding any unique value, why would users switch to an equally flawed version where none of the accounts they actually want to follow are?
I guess I don't get why all of these don't target better user experience goals - one login / trust plane and full distribution for decentralization.
The way I'd look at it is more like Bitcoin where everyone can decide how much compute to give to the pool to verify people or posts and maybe everyone shares chunks of the whole pie with copies like freenet.
Maybe I'm (likely) too dumb to get why this isn't what things in the fediverse is but they all are an awful experience and having so many hosts makes critical mass non existent so I can't be bothered to participate.
eitland|8 days ago
Twitter didn't succeed because it was a particularly good solution - it really isn't. It succeeded purely on the back of the network effect.
When every open-source alternative simply copies the existing restrictions without adding any unique value, why would users switch to an equally flawed version where none of the accounts they actually want to follow are?
maelito|8 days ago
Bluesky got the decentralisation UX right.
listic|8 days ago
maelito|8 days ago
hypercube33|8 days ago
The way I'd look at it is more like Bitcoin where everyone can decide how much compute to give to the pool to verify people or posts and maybe everyone shares chunks of the whole pie with copies like freenet.
Maybe I'm (likely) too dumb to get why this isn't what things in the fediverse is but they all are an awful experience and having so many hosts makes critical mass non existent so I can't be bothered to participate.