Mastodon Actually Has 407K+ More Monthly Users Than It Thought (techcrunch.com) 46
A network connectivity error caused Mastodon to severely undercount its users. According to founder and CEO Eugen Rochko, the decentralized social network actually has 407,814 more monthly active users than it had been reporting previously. "The adjustment also included a gain of 2.34 million registered users across an additional 727 servers that had not been counted due to the error," reports TechCrunch. From the report: The issue was impacting the metrics reported on Mastodon's statistics aggregator on its joinmastodon.org/servers page, which had been undercounting users between October 2 and October 8. This issue has now been resolved, Rochko said. That leaves Mastodon with a total of 1.8 million monthly active users at present, an increase of 5% month-over-month and 10,000 servers, up 12% -- a testament to Mastodon's current upward swing at a time when the nature of X continues to remain in flux.
In flux? (Score:2, Interesting)
when the nature of X continues to remain in flux.
Is that the word we're using when the company is cash flow negative because ad revenue is down 50% year over year [reuters.com] and to try and scrounge every pfennig he can, Musk has said he will not pay content creators unless they have a premium account [businessinsider.com] (i.e. paid).
Or did they mean having all basic functionality removed [forbes.com] on a whim?
Re: (Score:1)
when the nature of X continues to remain in flux.
Twitter got Fluxed by Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're seeing the "Peter Principle" in action here.
Musk is a brilliant scientist and engineer but is clueless about social media and is destroying X (neeTwitter).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny to watch all the haters repeat the same claims over and over again, in the exact same outlets as twitter just keeps getting better for the users that aren't the tiny clique of american journos used to special treatment on that platform and have screaming in agony for last half a year or so as they can no longer just silence people there by firing off an email to their favourite twitter insider.
Re:In flux? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I guess that's hypocrisy for you. It's okay if it's my clique that gets special treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
I've long been in the "I want to see everyone else speak" clique. So I didn't swap one at all. But I do demand special treatment for my clique, in that I demand that all other cliques can speak.
Current twitter activity between pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli activists for example has been an excellent primer on which side aligns more with my personal morals. I would have gotten a very different view if I followed curated, edited and widely censored narrative of mainstream instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they're in charge. I said that their demands have been met by current management. Those are not the same thing. One of the benefits of being in the "free speech" camp is that a lot of political movements in fact agree with you, so you don't have to be the one in power to get what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they're in charge. I said that their demands have been met by current management. Those are not the same thing.
Wow. Keep twisting things to see what you want to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that EU's censor in chief agrees with me that there's too much free speech on that platform, as both pro-Hamas and pro-Israel accounts remained online, I'd say I'm far from alone in seeing reality.
It’s still Twitter. (Score:2)
“Hahaha suck it libs” he said as he shoved shards of broken glass into his rectum in a fit of pure ecstasy, “Twitter belongs to us now! You’ll see it’s finally going to be good!”
8 years ago even if your politics happened to align with mine and you showed any enthusiasm for Twitter I took it as a huge red flag and probable sign of being a a complete moron.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the "twitter belongs to us" was a leftist journo project. It belongs to everyone now and that is why you far left nutjobs are coping and seething
Am I seething?
I didn’t use it before and I’ve been blocking twitter embeds for nearly a decade now. I didn’t read the rest of your post for similar reasons.
I’ve always considered Twitter fandom to be a sign of dangerous narcissism or gullibility. Just enough space to launch a meaningless opinion out into the aether where it can be scooped up and consumed wholesale. Where once upon a time you could maybe hope to consume a dozen mediocre points of view now you can consume thousands
Re: (Score:2)
>Twitter fandom
Projection continues to be strong with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's now called x.com. And Musk single handedly reinvigorated interest in space exploration. And as his recent streams show, he's a gamer so he knows what XCOM means.
What does he know that we don't?!
Re: In flux? (Score:3)
Or did they mean having all basic functionality removed on a whim?
So I see why journalists will hate it, but that actually sounds like a good thing. Journalists these days love to dump rhetoric into the headlines to generate clicks for articles that are totally lacking in substance. I think the Internet could use a little less clickbait, and journalists will stop trying to use this one weird trick.
Disclaimer: I don't use Twitter so I can't comment on its usefulness or whether this should even be considered "basic functionality" as you put it, but I tend to think the basic
Re: In flux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you seriously asking if the ability to share links counts as basic functionality on social media? It's one of the most core features people use on social media.
Re: (Score:3)
It’s a useful feature that’s abused so badly as to be a net loss for the internet. If you care about yourself you should probably avoid exposing your eyeballs to modern link aggregation garbage. Find yourself a few RSS feeds that aren’t trash and you can stay informed without ever needing to read headlines ending in question marks, find out what happens next, or see whatever left twitter speechless.
If everyone started using RSS I’m sure the attention would have people finding ways
Re: In flux? (Score:2)
So you're telling me that they removed the ability to share links? Because it doesn't sound like it.
X removed title from link to page with image card (Score:2)
X removed users' ability to read the title or full URL of a shared link to an HTML document, such as a cited source, if the document has the <meta> elements for an image card.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think the Internet could use a little less clickbait, and journalists will stop trying to use this one weird trick.
Twitters removing head lines has zero effect on this.
If it really bothered news agencies they would just put the text on the image. It also prevents twitter farming data on the nature of the clicks easily.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the way Slashdot defaults to putting the domain that links go to in square brackets. It's there to prevent abuse by giving the user a preview of what the link is, so they don't get sent to goatse again.
Similarly on Twitter the headline is displayed to limit the amount of distortion that the poster can get away with. Posting links that most readers won't click is a popular way to lend credibility to lies. It actually used to be quite popular around here too. Many readers just assume that the link m
Re: (Score:2)
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered X community when IDC confirmed that X market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all social media. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that X has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. X is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the rece
It Is Not Election Time (Score:2)
Atta boy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a testament to the fact that you can in fact use Mastodon as a sort of quasi-standalone personal closed social network. In that, Mastodon is quite good.
Its public facing instances on the other hand are very meh. Though they did get improved after all the screaming terminally online twitter professionals (sometimes also known as journalists in the modern world) got collectively banned from it after they tried to behave there like they did on twitter.
Re: Atta boy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of three biggest Mastodon instances, last I checked a couple of months after twitter changing management two were MAP networks. The largest one of the three is the mainline one maintained by Mastodon developers. MAP is the current left wing academia code word for "minor attracted person", i.e. a pedophile. This is the crowd that had free reign on twitter under the old management, and got nearly totally removed from twitter under the new one, so they are among the main groups that actually had to migrate
Re: (Score:2)
Out of three biggest Mastodon instances, last I checked a couple of months after twitter changing management two were MAP networks.
Try clearing your search history before looking for an instance and you might find a little more variety.
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather not go on another adventure of that kind. First time was more than enough to rob me of good night's sleep for a while.
Re:20% more of nothing is still nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Mastodon isn't funded by VCs. Eugen Rochko explicitly rejected VC funding.
Re: (Score:2)
And caring about user activity statistics is pointless unless you want to sell the idea that Mastodon is worth money.
Re:20% more of nothing is still nothing (Score:4)
For a traditional social media company, there are astronomical costs related to hardware and bandwidth. For federated software, those costs largely go away as individual users/communities host their own instances.
Also, user activity statistics are relevant even if Mastodon doesn't seek to become worth money. People are more likely to become invested in a community if they see evidence that it's viable.
I see the fediverse as having the potential to disrupt social media the way that Linux disrupted the server market. Sure, people can make money off it, but we'll all have access to the same free tools and it will be a lot harder to lock customers in. At the moment, this is just potential, and the fediverse resembles the Linux desktop community more than the server market. Part of this is due to the resilience of the existing social media platforms, and part of it is the resistance on the part of fediverse communities to any for-profit ventures with their software. Still, I'm rooting for the fediverse as the ability to self-host and integrate with the larger internet community can break down the walls and tolls built by our existing internet overlords (social media, Google, Microsoft, AWS, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Right now Mastodon is a quite nice place to be. Not as busy as Twitter perhaps, but most of the stuff posted there is at least no clickbait or spam.
The only issue I have is that it's a bit tricky to block porn. I'm no prude, but I don't really want porn on my screen when I'm scrolling through in public. By default most clients don't show images, they show a blurred version, but that gets annoying fast as you need to click them over and over. And there is often little warning that the post is porn before you
Mom! (Score:3)
I told you not to bother me when I’m training my machine learning model!
Re: (Score:2)
They don’t need a lot of funding because dorks will run their own instances. I don’t use Mastodon or any of the other fedis much but they’re a return to the way things mostly worked in like 1993. Which in this particular case is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it’s a major project and needs someone to direct policy and governance full time or the whole thing will become chaotic and the org will have no hope of ever attaining organizational maturity?
Re: (Score:2)
Think about the context of this discussion and how it relates, yeah?