While sometimes I think…do we really want it to get super popular? But also even if the popularity comes with the assholes…blocking and curating can help and in the end, it IS still decentralized. So let’s say that convinces the average Lemmy user that yes, let’s grow this shit.
How do we get some of the big names here to promote it? I tell anyone who has a complaint with standard social media about the fediverse but I have minimal influence. I HAVE included it on surveys and contact with podcasts I follow, to promote it more, again limited influence.
I feel like we need like…whatever…a Taylor Swift type to take it up as something they push and then other big names will follow.
As you said, I don’t care about that really but many others do. Lemmy and occasional checkins with Reddit are my only social media. But if it gets more people here, it could be worth it. I personally would just love more communities to be more active because I like Lemmy…but right now I only see the biggest “Reddit copycats” getting the major activity.
I said before, the biggest thing is handles. If Taylor Swift came to the fediverse, I assume her twitter handle is @TaylorSwift
If she came to Lemmy, or Mastodon, her handle would be “@TaylorSwift@Mastodon.social” or “@TaylorSwift@Lemmy.World”
But then I could myself register “@TaylorSwift@Lemm.ee” or “@TaylorSwift@Mastodon.world”
And I could just be Taylor Swift.
What she has to do, and this goes for any public figure, is protect her brand. Her brand is Taylor Swift. Anything at all which creates confusion or infringing on use regarding that name is a problem for her. She needs to keep Taylor Swift exclusively to herself.
Just as Kellogs would want all use of the word Kellogs to belong to them.
So to attract them, they won’t come unless they can be the sole and exclusive @TaylorSwift
That’s the important part. She wants to be @TaylorSwift.
Not @TaylorSwift@Mastodon.social.
So to do this, I shouldn’t be able to create an identical handle, on a different instance.
The fediverse needs to all communicate with each other. I don’t have a peertube account. But since I’m Lost_My_Mind, that exact handle should no longer be in the pool of available peertube account names. And if I were to sign up, with the email from this Lemmy account, I wouldn’t even chose a handle. It would automatically choose Lost_My_Mind. The accounts would be the same.
Because at the end of the day, what celbrities want is one easy place for all people to reach them. Right now with X and Bluesky being two systems that aren’t interconnected, this splits the audience. We already know America is divided. Almost down the middle.
So the LAST thing celebrities, and brands want is bluesky to take off. Because then you’d have X with its right wing views, and bluesky with it’s left wing views. And then brands will have to make two accounts. One on X, one on bluesky. They’d much rather say they have one account with 40 million followers than 2 accounts. One with 22 million followers, and another account with 18 million followers.
And the thing nobody is taking into consideration is the scaling of the fediverse. You can have all of X and all of bluesky on the fediverse. All decentralized. But because 98% won’t notice the decentralized aspect, they won’t care. They’ll just stick to their little corner of the fediverse. And you’ll stick to your corner, and in the middle will be brands.
And both sides can connect to brands from their corner of the fediverse. The only reason brands care to pick a side, is because analytics tells them one side is more likely to financially support them. But they’ll happily take subscribers and money from the other side. Red states? Blue states? Doesn’t matter. All they care about is green states!
And the potential is there. People who want a small fediverse can scale their individual view smaller. People who want it bigger can scale it bigger. It literally has the ability to please both sides wishes. It just has to be implemented properly.
But it may actually be already too late. The bluesky ball has started rolling. Sometimes it’s not about logic. You can have a factually better option, but still lose by having inferior numbers.
Right now, bluesky has an artificial solution to the handles issue. You’re @handle@bsky.app, but EVERYONE is @bsky.app unless you use a custom domain. So realistically you’re just @handle unless specified otherwise.
Eh, anyone with their own domain can use it even without hosting anything. It just takes a DNS record. So Taylor Swift can have @taylorswift.com or w/e her official website is and that’s pretty much the exact same situation as claiming domain ownership. Someone else could likely register taylorswift.boats but I think most people would realize something is off there.
My point is, she doesn’t want to be @taylorswift@taylorswift.com
That’s so much extra offputting text. She just wants to be @taylorswift
That’s short, it’s concise, it’s easy to remember. It’s branding.
Just try to imagine a newscastor telling some story, and saying at the end:
“For all the latest from taylor swift, you can follow on the fediverse @taylorswift”
Now imagine that, compared to this:
“For all the latest from taylor swift, you can follow on the fediverse @taylorswift@taylorswift.com”
You can make it so the official handle in operation behind the scenes is @taylorswift@taylorswift.com
That’s not the issue. The issue is, she would want to control her own name. Meaning I couldn’t make @taylorswift@otherdomain.ext
Yes, it’s easy to spot that being fake TO YOU. You have to remember that 60% of America is literally illiterate. Domains are NOT hard to register, but they are hard to register every single variation of a false domain.
Now I can be @taylorswift@faylorswift.com
And how many people might fall for that? And sure, you don’t eliminate the problem by making handles exclusive, but it makes it harder to fake, and easier to go after those attempting identity theft.
My point is that she can be @taylorswift.com not @taylorswift@taylorswift.com. Also, exaggerating the number of illiterate people in the USA doesn’t help your argument. You can already be @FaylorSwift on twitter so I’m still not seeing how this is any more secure than using her actual domain that her fans may be familiar with.
While sometimes I think…do we really want it to get super popular? But also even if the popularity comes with the assholes…blocking and curating can help and in the end, it IS still decentralized. So let’s say that convinces the average Lemmy user that yes, let’s grow this shit.
How do we get some of the big names here to promote it? I tell anyone who has a complaint with standard social media about the fediverse but I have minimal influence. I HAVE included it on surveys and contact with podcasts I follow, to promote it more, again limited influence.
I feel like we need like…whatever…a Taylor Swift type to take it up as something they push and then other big names will follow.
As you said, I don’t care about that really but many others do. Lemmy and occasional checkins with Reddit are my only social media. But if it gets more people here, it could be worth it. I personally would just love more communities to be more active because I like Lemmy…but right now I only see the biggest “Reddit copycats” getting the major activity.
I said before, the biggest thing is handles. If Taylor Swift came to the fediverse, I assume her twitter handle is @TaylorSwift
If she came to Lemmy, or Mastodon, her handle would be “@TaylorSwift@Mastodon.social” or “@TaylorSwift@Lemmy.World”
But then I could myself register “@TaylorSwift@Lemm.ee” or “@TaylorSwift@Mastodon.world”
And I could just be Taylor Swift.
What she has to do, and this goes for any public figure, is protect her brand. Her brand is Taylor Swift. Anything at all which creates confusion or infringing on use regarding that name is a problem for her. She needs to keep Taylor Swift exclusively to herself.
Just as Kellogs would want all use of the word Kellogs to belong to them.
So to attract them, they won’t come unless they can be the sole and exclusive @TaylorSwift
That’s the important part. She wants to be @TaylorSwift.
Not @TaylorSwift@Mastodon.social.
So to do this, I shouldn’t be able to create an identical handle, on a different instance.
The fediverse needs to all communicate with each other. I don’t have a peertube account. But since I’m Lost_My_Mind, that exact handle should no longer be in the pool of available peertube account names. And if I were to sign up, with the email from this Lemmy account, I wouldn’t even chose a handle. It would automatically choose Lost_My_Mind. The accounts would be the same.
Because at the end of the day, what celbrities want is one easy place for all people to reach them. Right now with X and Bluesky being two systems that aren’t interconnected, this splits the audience. We already know America is divided. Almost down the middle.
So the LAST thing celebrities, and brands want is bluesky to take off. Because then you’d have X with its right wing views, and bluesky with it’s left wing views. And then brands will have to make two accounts. One on X, one on bluesky. They’d much rather say they have one account with 40 million followers than 2 accounts. One with 22 million followers, and another account with 18 million followers.
And the thing nobody is taking into consideration is the scaling of the fediverse. You can have all of X and all of bluesky on the fediverse. All decentralized. But because 98% won’t notice the decentralized aspect, they won’t care. They’ll just stick to their little corner of the fediverse. And you’ll stick to your corner, and in the middle will be brands.
And both sides can connect to brands from their corner of the fediverse. The only reason brands care to pick a side, is because analytics tells them one side is more likely to financially support them. But they’ll happily take subscribers and money from the other side. Red states? Blue states? Doesn’t matter. All they care about is green states!
And the potential is there. People who want a small fediverse can scale their individual view smaller. People who want it bigger can scale it bigger. It literally has the ability to please both sides wishes. It just has to be implemented properly.
But it may actually be already too late. The bluesky ball has started rolling. Sometimes it’s not about logic. You can have a factually better option, but still lose by having inferior numbers.
Right now, bluesky has an artificial solution to the handles issue. You’re @handle@bsky.app, but EVERYONE is @bsky.app unless you use a custom domain. So realistically you’re just @handle unless specified otherwise.
Same way a website is just website.com, even though it’s really https://www.website.com/
The https://www/. is implied, just like the @bsky.app is going to be implied as time goes on.
Eh, anyone with their own domain can use it even without hosting anything. It just takes a DNS record. So Taylor Swift can have @taylorswift.com or w/e her official website is and that’s pretty much the exact same situation as claiming domain ownership. Someone else could likely register taylorswift.boats but I think most people would realize something is off there.
My point is, she doesn’t want to be @taylorswift@taylorswift.com
That’s so much extra offputting text. She just wants to be @taylorswift
That’s short, it’s concise, it’s easy to remember. It’s branding.
Just try to imagine a newscastor telling some story, and saying at the end:
Now imagine that, compared to this:
You can make it so the official handle in operation behind the scenes is @taylorswift@taylorswift.com
That’s not the issue. The issue is, she would want to control her own name. Meaning I couldn’t make @taylorswift@otherdomain.ext
Yes, it’s easy to spot that being fake TO YOU. You have to remember that 60% of America is literally illiterate. Domains are NOT hard to register, but they are hard to register every single variation of a false domain.
Now I can be @taylorswift@faylorswift.com
And how many people might fall for that? And sure, you don’t eliminate the problem by making handles exclusive, but it makes it harder to fake, and easier to go after those attempting identity theft.
My point is that she can be @taylorswift.com not @taylorswift@taylorswift.com. Also, exaggerating the number of illiterate people in the USA doesn’t help your argument. You can already be @FaylorSwift on twitter so I’m still not seeing how this is any more secure than using her actual domain that her fans may be familiar with.
You can use your domain as your handle Bluesky, I’ve never seen it done on ActivityPub. Is it possible?
deleted by creator
If you want more people to donate, you’ve got to become more popular, and lemmy needs donations afaik