The Problem with the Fediverse

I was never really convinced by federated open-source clones of popular commercial social-network (like, for example, Mastodon).

The first point is that I am convinced they will never break the inertia and attraction power of the "original" platform. There are two reasons for that. First, the clones start **after** the original platform became successful and, therefore, they always start from a deep disadvantage. Second, they do not add anything to the mix: people stay on social network X because it is a platform where other people are. Why should they switch to a less populated platform that is strictly inferior to the original?

However, recently I developed a second point that I think is my definitive answer to the question "why we do not need an open source alternative to social networks". It is because we do not need **another** social-network: we need less of them.

Social networks are an addictive shits. Once I break free of one of them, why the hell should I came back into another one?! Yes, it is "federated" and it is "open source"; but the model is the same, the people are (on average) the same, and the toxic dynamics are exactly the same.

Nobody stops smoking cigarettes only to start smoking *"freegarettes"*. One stops smoking cigarettes to do something healthier with the money and time saved. I think the same applies to this ugly clones of "commercial social drugs".

What we need is a different model. A completely different model. A new way (or an old way, if you prefer) to interact with people and with smaller communities. And we will never get there by spending time and resources trying to do a bad copy of some fucking horrible social-network.

I am convinced we reached the top of the social-network parabola. Let's stop wasting time and let's start build something new before some corporate scoop in trying to steal it.

~~~ Kenger, Latina, Italy, 2021-05-27 T21:25:13

💻 _While watching Jonhatan Blow on