1.9 KiB
+++ title = "services aren't communities" summary = "imo the biggest mistake of fedi is tying together the social and technical layers [...] some people want services and some people want communities and they are not the same thing" date = 2023-05-07T17:39:00-05:00 source = "https://mastodon.social/@trwnh/110329802576726213" +++
services aren't communities
the gmail community
imo the biggest mistake of fedi is tying together the social and technical layers. local timelines should have been group chats all along
it's a huge misunderstanding because some people want services and some people want communities and they are not the same thing. some people can run a community but offer bad service. some people offer great service but can't run a community
instances shouldn't exist as the only model. the service layer and the community layer should be separate. combining the two makes both of them worse -- as can be seen if you violate the rules of your community, you lose access not just to the community, but to the service entirely. and if the community cannot continue to provide service, you again lose both.
i do think there is some value in being both, because then people feel more likely to donate as they are personally invested. but you could have incentives to donate even while keeping them separate.
Yes! I think I've been spiralling towards a less well articulated version of this for a while. Too many people have been trying to make the Fediverse just one big social network with many servers and erase the aspect that's many small social networks that can communicate, and it's exactly that they're viewing it purely as service and not as community, and it absolutely needs to be both or else it can't meaningfully be either.
i have a slightly different view, which is that multiple communities exist here and their organization and distribution is very dysfunctional because of the "instance" model being both and neither at the same time