welcome to the second-ever Beehaw Community Survey. it’s been awhile because of everything going on; we last did one of these with the influx of people last June and we got 1,500 responses that time. we don’t expect anywhere near that many this time, but that’s fine.

this survey should take about 10 minutes to fill out, so we strongly encourage you to do so when you are able to. you can find it at the following link:

Beehaw Community Survey #2

the survey is comprised of eight optional demographic questions to help us assess the overall identity of our community and eight questions relating to Beehaw and the Fediverse. the survey will be open for at least three days but no longer than one week. it’ll be locally pinned for the duration of that minimum three days, so please mind that. results will also be aggregated and posted on here/the Docs page in a summary like with the last survey. no ETA on that.

this is also a good time to remind everyone that Beehaw has moved over to Open Collective Europe Foundation, and we will be taking all donations from there going forward. please direct your donations there if you haven’t switched from our old Open Collective Foundation page yet!

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    3·
    9 months ago

    That river analogy is somewhat flawed, in that there are several levels to federation on Lemmy/Mastodon/etc:

    • Federation of messages
    • Federation of communities/boosts
    • Federation of the “default” feed

    Fediverse’s default, is every user building their own “whitelist” out of people they decide to follow. Aggregate feeds like “Local” or “All”, or the search feature, are optional discovery tools. Lemmy also adds “curated users” in the form of communities, which are still optional.

    There could be more (mod) tools to curate these feeds for those that want to shape them, but it seems to me like the “federation problem” is more one of personal education, of asking for “someone else”, or “an algorithm”, to curate a single feed that people can follow… which is inherently contrary to the freedom of a federated system.

    • Radiant_sir_radiant@beehaw.org
      4·
      9 months ago

      That river analogy is somewhat flawed, in that there are several levels to federation on Lemmy/Mastodon/etc:

      I agree, but my point wasn’t a perfect analogy. I merely intended to point out the considerable difference in the workload of the two ‘extreme’ approaches.

      User-defined filtering is also very nice to have, but I feel like instance-level filtering is what gives an instance its unique look-and-feel. And from what I’ve read, Beehaw has also defederated from certain instances ‘only’ because moderating all the undesirable stuff coming from there put too much of a strain on the mod team. Hence my river analogy.

      My personal opinion is that federation is a wonderful concept, but it sometimes comes at a cost that may outweigh its benefits.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        2·
        9 months ago

        Beehaw needed to:

        • stop some messages
        • didn’t need to stop communities
        • maybe curate its “All” feed

        …the only mod tool available, was defederation. This is a clear shortcoming of the tools, which right now only allow an “all or nothing” approach, not of the federation itself.

        instance-level filtering is what gives an instance its unique look-and-feel

        Not exactly; the rules and community of an instance, are what give that “unique look-and-feel”.

        In an alternative reality, with a slightly different approach to federation, an “instance” could be a curated preset the user imports into their client.

        Actually, that could be done with the Fediverse, if someone decided to do it.