News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?. Parent comment

Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by nextlevelwizard on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:04AM (#35535591)
Mastodon needs to at very least change its terminology if it ever wants to be taken seriously. As funny as it is for people to be "tooting" out whatever happens to be in their head in that very moment no one wants to be known as a "tooter" who "toots" frequently.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by esskay on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:23AM (#35535708)
Tooting aside (it's a silly enough term as it is) Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person.

"It's a decentralized social platform where you sign up to individual..."

Yeah they're already asleep. The average person doesn't give a damn about that, and they sure as hell arent about to jump through a poor UI experience and extremely badly worded terminology to sign up to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by nextlevelwizard on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:26AM (#35535733)
Let's not kid ourselves. Average person isn't reading anything that is on the sign up page. There exists some magical break point when people start to switch over and after that the sign up page can be blank and people will move there.

It is completely different matter if that point will ever be reached.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by rsynnott on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @08:02AM (#35538282)
The average person uses _email_, bear in mind. They don't know or care how it works, but they use it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by jrm4 on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @01:38PM (#35543569)
"It's Twitter, but set up like email where you have multiple servers, but they can all talk to each other"

That wasn't very hard at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by s3krit on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @03:27PM (#35545393)
'what's a server?'
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by notjulianjaynes on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @04:13PM (#35546098)
Is this actually a problem? I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who use the internet have a good enough idea of what a server is that even if they're dead wrong about how one works it isn't terminology that would be confusing to them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by dmonitor on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @05:50PM (#35547492)
Vast vast majority don't even know what their router is, let alone a server.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by jrm4 on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @07:03PM (#35548261)
The internet (or cloud, if you prefer, mostly the same thing) is just a bunch of computers connected to each other. "Servers" are the big ones in the middle that handle stuff like email and youtube videos

this is not THAT hard yall

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by Shared404 on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:25PM (#35544418)
> Mastedons never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person.

Email's never going to go mainstream. It's too convoluted and complicated to explain how it works to someone with a moderate level of skill in IT, let alone your average every day person.

"It's a decentralized communication platform where you sign up to individual..."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by manuelmoreale on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @04:16PM (#35546144)
Email had a real world counterpart. In that sense it was easier to explain because you could start from traditional mail and use that to explain emails.

Mastodon and its relationship with the fediverse is indeed complicated to grasp.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by dewey on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:34AM (#35535788)
This was already changed two years ago: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/16080
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by nextlevelwizard on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @04:35AM (#35536620)
>In this PR, the publish button still says "Toot!" but it's worth thinking about as well.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by dewey on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @04:36AM (#35536631)
This is one of many PRs that removed the references to "toot" over the years.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by whatshisface on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:22AM (#35535701)
That's a good thing, some of the worst cultures on Twitter are based around taking it too seriously...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by nextlevelwizard on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:25AM (#35535721)
If you just want to communicate with your friends why not use some IM service like Discord or IRC?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by nl on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:08AM (#35535617)
Is there any difference between tooting and tweeting really?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by nextlevelwizard on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:18AM (#35535675)
Other than that "tweeting" is what birds do and "tooting" is term for farting and slang for snorting cocaine? Well, isnt that enough?

Whenever I hear someone "tooted" on Mastodon I just imagine them farting while high on cocaine.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? by omeid2 on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @02:18AM (#35535677)
Yes. "toot" sounds far less refined than "tweet". Is it completely subjective? Yes, but if enough people think so, "it is so".
[ Parent | on HN ]