The email analogy is bad and needs to end. People hear email and think it’s like email. They don’t hear the technical how-it-works.
People don’t need to know the inner workings to use it. Just tell them it’s social media. If you need more, say it’s lots of different servers that talk to each other.
It’s an apt analogy - that’s why it keeps being used. Anyone can run their own email server, and federate by accepting emails from other email servers.
“The Fediverse” is just reinventing the wheel. It’s basically just publicly viewable email. You are grandma from 1997 and the email that showed up as “FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Thought you might find this funny!”
The problem is people think it’s email. I don’t blame them, they hear the word email and they think email.
They don’t think or hear the technical explanation and workings of: “Anyone can run their own email server, and federate by accepting emails from other email servers.” It’s not how the vast, vast majority of people work.
Why do they need to? We hide the technical and inner workings of most things, because half the population is too stupid to understand it. It doesn’t mean they can’t use it. Look at lemmy for instance. I’d be willing to bet 99% of the people here couldn’t set up a lemmy instance for themselves.
??? That’s exactly what I’m saying. We don’t need to explain the inner workings with comparisons to email. Just tell them to browse or make an account.
But people need something to compare it to. They don’t know why the fediverse is something they should want.
The email comparison is to explain that they can participate anywhere, it’s not to fundamentally portray the inner workings of it; but just to approximate it on a surface level.
Kind of like saying “Facebook is kinda like Myspace”…it wasn’t Myspace, and we’re not asking people understand the technical differences, but there has to be some sort of starting-off point.
I explain to people that it’s like Twitter, but if twitter acted like email where you could sign up with any provider.
Tell them it’s Social media. That’s the comparison they need. For why they might want it: it’s not controlled by a corporation.
Ok the confusion may be that what you think is surface level is the inner working. Surface level to normal people is the user interface. The surface level of Lemmy for instance is it’s like social media. Just like the surface level of emails is “dear sir blah blah blah regards” and cc this person. You say email and they think of that surface level. Talking about how it works with intercommunication between instances like email intercommunicates is literally the inner working. And leads to the exact content of the tweet, you should reread it. Ok I’m just repeating myself so that I’m out.
Signing up is the first interaction you have in order to use the site; thus my opinion that it’s surface-level. I mean, lurkers who never sign up could be considered - but I’d argue they don’t really need a federated site then.
That’s the exact problem, people think about emails. You know, addresses and inbox and CC. They don’t focus on or know or understand the technical comparison. They’ve never had to think about it before. It’s the exact wrong way to try to introduce them to fediverse. Don’t even say fediverse, just say Lemmy or whatever else.
The fediverse is like how you can send an email from your work to your personal account because the two email servers have a way to talk to each other. It isn’t like Facebook or Instagram where you can only send messages to people on the same platform.
The analogy certainly worked for me when I first read up on it. “Oh, different servers speaking the same language so they can communicate even though they’re separate entities”.
I imagine the only people who are really confused by it are the ones who simply cannot grasp analogies in general.
There sure are a lot of people who are focused on everything except the actual comparison.
If someone said that Diet Coke and Diet Sprite tasted awful because they both have artificial sweetners they would just argue that the comparison is confusing because Coke is a dark color and Sprite is clear!
Ok I’ve explained this twice, so this will be my last attempt. Because people hear the word “email” and upon hearing the word “email” they, wait for it, think it’s email. You know, the email they’ve used for 20 years. Once they hear the word “email” they stop hearing anything else. They heard the word “email” and have automatically filled in the rest with their experiences of typing “dear madam blah blah blah best regards” and CC this person so they can see it. They have filled it in with their user experience. They have never thought about the inner workings of email with servers or intercommunication.
People do not need to know about the inner workings of email or lemmy in order to use them. Trying to explain the inner workings before they even start is entirely unnecessary. And trying to explain with a different service like email is even worse, well because of what I wrote above. It confuses them.
The broad explanation is bad. When you lead people into things that you really should know they will automatically fill in with their prior experiences.
Compare it social media and they will fill it in with their experiences with social media. Infinitely better and more accurate than email for the user experience. Alright I think I’m out.
A lot of people in this thread have never had to explain some piece of tech to someone who doesn’t really get technology, and it shows. Your explanation would just confuse most people.
I agree with you 100% and have made the same argument elsewhere. You’ve done a good job explaining and defending it. I usually just tell people it’s like reddit but not owned by one company. People who don’t really know what a server is can understand the appeal of that.
The email analogy is bad and needs to end. People hear email and think it’s like email. They don’t hear the technical how-it-works.
People don’t need to know the inner workings to use it. Just tell them it’s social media. If you need more, say it’s lots of different servers that talk to each other.
It’s an apt analogy - that’s why it keeps being used. Anyone can run their own email server, and federate by accepting emails from other email servers.
“The Fediverse” is just reinventing the wheel. It’s basically just publicly viewable email. You are grandma from 1997 and the email that showed up as “FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Thought you might find this funny!”
The problem is people think it’s email. I don’t blame them, they hear the word email and they think email.
They don’t think or hear the technical explanation and workings of: “Anyone can run their own email server, and federate by accepting emails from other email servers.” It’s not how the vast, vast majority of people work.
I mean the response of the curious even would probally be “you can run your own email server?”.
Why do they need to? We hide the technical and inner workings of most things, because half the population is too stupid to understand it. It doesn’t mean they can’t use it. Look at lemmy for instance. I’d be willing to bet 99% of the people here couldn’t set up a lemmy instance for themselves.
??? That’s exactly what I’m saying. We don’t need to explain the inner workings with comparisons to email. Just tell them to browse or make an account.
But people need something to compare it to. They don’t know why the fediverse is something they should want.
The email comparison is to explain that they can participate anywhere, it’s not to fundamentally portray the inner workings of it; but just to approximate it on a surface level.
Kind of like saying “Facebook is kinda like Myspace”…it wasn’t Myspace, and we’re not asking people understand the technical differences, but there has to be some sort of starting-off point.
I explain to people that it’s like Twitter, but if twitter acted like email where you could sign up with any provider.
Tell them it’s Social media. That’s the comparison they need. For why they might want it: it’s not controlled by a corporation.
Ok the confusion may be that what you think is surface level is the inner working. Surface level to normal people is the user interface. The surface level of Lemmy for instance is it’s like social media. Just like the surface level of emails is “dear sir blah blah blah regards” and cc this person. You say email and they think of that surface level. Talking about how it works with intercommunication between instances like email intercommunicates is literally the inner working. And leads to the exact content of the tweet, you should reread it. Ok I’m just repeating myself so that I’m out.
Signing up is the first interaction you have in order to use the site; thus my opinion that it’s surface-level. I mean, lurkers who never sign up could be considered - but I’d argue they don’t really need a federated site then.
Except it’s nothing whatsoever like email, and you’re just confusing people.
Okay, it’s like a mailing list over email.
The email comparison is good, if you focus on what is actually being compared and not anything else about emails.
That’s the exact problem, people think about emails. You know, addresses and inbox and CC. They don’t focus on or know or understand the technical comparison. They’ve never had to think about it before. It’s the exact wrong way to try to introduce them to fediverse. Don’t even say fediverse, just say Lemmy or whatever else.
The fediverse is like how you can send an email from your work to your personal account because the two email servers have a way to talk to each other. It isn’t like Facebook or Instagram where you can only send messages to people on the same platform.
How is that not a good analogy?
Because it explains the stuff regular users don’t care about.
Why would they care which server has the content they want to see? They don’t do so now. They just want the content.
Call it a free social media with no ads or algorithms. And you will get a much better response.
The analogy certainly worked for me when I first read up on it. “Oh, different servers speaking the same language so they can communicate even though they’re separate entities”.
I imagine the only people who are really confused by it are the ones who simply cannot grasp analogies in general.
There sure are a lot of people who are focused on everything except the actual comparison.
If someone said that Diet Coke and Diet Sprite tasted awful because they both have artificial sweetners they would just argue that the comparison is confusing because Coke is a dark color and Sprite is clear!
Those are both carbonated sodas though, they perform largely the same function. Unlike email vs social media, which perform entirely different roles.
OMG, you can’t just compare two colors of soda!
Ok I’ve explained this twice, so this will be my last attempt. Because people hear the word “email” and upon hearing the word “email” they, wait for it, think it’s email. You know, the email they’ve used for 20 years. Once they hear the word “email” they stop hearing anything else. They heard the word “email” and have automatically filled in the rest with their experiences of typing “dear madam blah blah blah best regards” and CC this person so they can see it. They have filled it in with their user experience. They have never thought about the inner workings of email with servers or intercommunication.
People do not need to know about the inner workings of email or lemmy in order to use them. Trying to explain the inner workings before they even start is entirely unnecessary. And trying to explain with a different service like email is even worse, well because of what I wrote above. It confuses them.
A comparison isn’t bad just because some people have trouble with listening to the end of a sentence.
The broad explanation is bad. When you lead people into things that you really should know they will automatically fill in with their prior experiences.
That is true of absolutely every comparison.
Compare it social media and they will fill it in with their experiences with social media. Infinitely better and more accurate than email for the user experience. Alright I think I’m out.
Because you’re not sending messages to other people, you’re posting on an open forum. The user experience is totally different to email.
Focus on everything except the actual comparison challenge successful!
A lot of people in this thread have never had to explain some piece of tech to someone who doesn’t really get technology, and it shows. Your explanation would just confuse most people.
So don’t explain anything at all ever. Gotcha.
Interesting takeaway, but in your case possibly the right one.
I agree with you 100% and have made the same argument elsewhere. You’ve done a good job explaining and defending it. I usually just tell people it’s like reddit but not owned by one company. People who don’t really know what a server is can understand the appeal of that.
What you say in the Fediverse echoes everywhere else that is federated. Pick an instance you like and have fun.
If they’re that stupid they can stay out. I’m okay with a barrier to entry.