Brutkey

Fedi.Tips
@FediTips@social.growyourown.services

p.s. To avoid repetition of replies:

-If people forget name of server they signed up on, it's written on the email they received when they signed up.

-Mastodon.social is in no way more reliable or easier than other servers with similar or better track records.

-If Mastodon gGmbH does not trust anyone else to run a server properly, why should anyone else trust Mastodon gGmbH to run a server properly? "Trust me, but I won't trust you" is a terrible argument in a collaborative project.

Eladriagon
@eladriagon@thepride.network

@FediTips@social.growyourown.services i wonder how we balance this with the "average user" (yes, i'm looking at you, tech-illiterate aunt sally) not knowing what a server is, how to find one, or what choosing one entails.

i only bring this up as mastodon (the software) wishes to become a more widespread social platform/solution versus the competition, so this type of first-experience UX should be considered carefully

to be clear, i don't think we should push users towards mastodon.social – but how is that done elegantly?


Fedi.Tips
@FediTips@social.growyourown.services

@eladriagon@thepride.network

None of the UX needs to change at all, they just need to change the server they are putting on the front page of the site and app.

Instead of promoting mastodon.social they have a reliable third party server that has a good track record that's similar or better than mastodon.social.

For a user the UX would all be exactly the same, but the growth would be spread out on more servers.