Fediverse

We’ve got some strong Star Trek nonsense brewing in [email protected]

Yeah, Usenet was where it was at back at the turn of the millennium. Then again, I had access through a university. Access wasn't free outside of places like that.

ISPs were spotty on coverage because even at that time, they needed at least a terabyte of storage to dedicate to it, and still not be able to cover everything that was on there. Of course, they might've got away with less if they decided not to carry the binaries newsgroups...

The way it worked was a lot like how Fediverse federation works now, or similarly, filesharing. It was possible to be reading a thread of messages and the older ones wouldn't be available on your local/ISP news server because their space had been recycled for newer data.

If you were lucky, your attempt to access that message might cause your host to grab it on a future request to upstream hosts or peers, but some Usenet messages are completely lost to time because everyone purged them.

Google buying Dejanews, the largest archive of all messages, and merging it with the travesty that was (and still is) Google Groups just about killed the whole thing.

It's not really like they were evil about it though. Google attracted customers through its huge (at the time) 1 GB email storage space, which at the time, was unbelievably generous and also impressive in that it was offered for free. Outlook (Hotmail at the time) also drew in customers by offering the service for free, anywhere in the world, without needing to sign up for Internet service. Remember, at the time, e-mail was a service that was bundled with your Internet service provider.

Into the mid-2000s and 2010s, the way that Gmail and Outlook kept customers was through bundle deals for enterprise customers and improvements to their webmail offerings. Gmail had (and arguably, still has) one of the best webmail clients available anywhere. Outlook was not far behind, and it was also usually bundled with enterprise Microsoft Office subscriptions, so most companies just decided, "eh, why not". The price (free) and simplicity is difficult to beat. It was at that point that Microsoft Outlook (the mail client, not the e-mail service) was the "gold standard" for desktop mail clients, at least according to middle-aged office workers who barely knew anything about e-mail to begin with. Today, the G-Suite, as it is called, is one of the most popular enterprise software suites, perhaps second only to Microsoft Office. Most people learned how to use e-mail and the Internet in the 2000s and 2010s through school or work.

You have to compare the offerings of Google and Microsoft with their competitors. AOL mail was popular but the Internet service provided by the same company was not. When people quit AOL Internet service, many switched e-mail providers as well, thinking that if they did not maintain their AOL subscription, they would lose access to their mailbox as well.

Google and Microsoft didn't "kill" the decentralised e-mail of yesteryear. They beat it fair and square by offering a superior product. If you're trying to pick an e-mail service today, Gmail and Outlook are still by far the best options in terms of ease of use, free storage, and the quality of their webmail clients. I would even go so far as to say that the Gmail web client was so good that it single-handedly killed the desktop mail client for casual users. I think that today, there are really only three legitimate players left if you're a rational consumer who is self-interested in picking the best e-mail service for yourself: Proton Mail if you care a lot about privacy, and Gmail or Outlook if you don't.

@yahoo.com is still somewhat popular among us old farts.

convincing ourselves that the fediverse is actually very simple

There's a difference between 'technically simple' and 'understandable UX'.

Your mom doesn't need to know how ActivityPub works or the intricacies of federation. She just needs to know to log in and go to c/cutecats.

The early-adopter curse here is causing way too much technobabble to be involved in descriptions that just confuse people, and it's technical aspects that the nerd cohort here is fascinated by, but uh, nobody else is.

The real leap will be to resist the urge to pull out the PPT and spend 3 hours and 10,000 words explaining how Lemmy works vs the much more concise how-to-use-Lemmy details that people actually want.

There's a lot of assumptions being made by a lot of people that "normal" people are stupid and couldn't understand 'It's a conversation platform like Reddit, but it's run by it's users and that's why there's a lot of servers who all talk to each other' and so there's a lot of hand wringing about how you have to explain all the details and such, which really, isn't all that true.

Every non-technical person I've explained it to like that immediately understands what it is, how you'd use it, and what it's used for and I'll occasionally get a 'Oh, neat, how does all that work?' question I can then expand on, but that's like, maybe 1 out of 20.

TLDR: too many details is not helpful for most people, and nerds loooooove going into more detail than anyone could possibly care about

There is discoveribility, but no one uses it. It's called Web of Trust (by PGP).

Perhaps a better analogy would be Usenet, IRC, or XMPP?

The point being made is really just the identity of user being tied to [email protected] vs @handle it seems like that concept has died with Web 2.0. Only thing I would improve of the fediverse. If communities could be merged with when a group of instances agree to form a network. Like how IRC does it with channels. I mean yeah there would be netsplits from time to time but it would cut down on duplication and increase the traffic of niche communities like the benefits of central platforms get but it's still distributed.

It was broken before then, the whole distributed user and instances is hard for the average non techy. This is the same issue Linux has. People say "just install Linux" but when the person Google's it, they get destroyed with 30 plus flavors and don't understand what to do.

It's an excuse, people don't want to just say they don't want to do it, so they make an excuse not to, saying it's ""complicated"". They don't feel like it or hate it for some irrational reason, possibly a misconception or just hate change.

If you see someone making excuses like this, or even casually making fun of the idea of decentralization and the fediverse, challenge them on it, point out how they are making excuses simply because they don't want to do it, or say no. Ask them how it is "complicated" and make them give an explanation. 90% of the people I've done this with couldn't come up with one and just acted embarrassed after, because they couldn't come up with one. It's a mindless excuse.

You CAN do the full list of things to get accepted there. But you only need to fail a SINGLE test to get sent to junk mail jail.

To not be put to junk you need all of the following (oh and this can and will change one day and you'll go straight to junk)

• SPF configured
• DKIM configured with valid keys applied to DNS
• DNS secured with DNSSEC, with validated keys passing all minimum requirements
• DMARC configured for domain
• Your mail server NOR the entire network on a DNSRBL. For example right now my mail server is hosted on OVH (moving soon) and it will go to junk, and in the hotmail/outlook headers it makes clear this is the only failure (-0.2 points, enough to go straight to junk mail jail)

Not sure if I missed any there. It's been a while since I set all this crap up.

I use proton and simplelogin aliases. Both doing fine

It was.

In fact, for about 3 weeks, Facebook and gtalk could exchange message seamlessly and easily over their fed gateway and xmpp.

Seeing a problem with this, FB changed. With it being at least 4.5 weeks since the last complete redesign incompatible with the old, Google also changed to something that sucked.

IRC was "kinda" federated. You needed to convince a server already in the network to accept your server. But in the early days requirements were quite low.

BBS was not really federated (except Fidonet I guess).

Usenet, I guess it kinda was. But only ISPs were really running NNTP servers. Only they and unis really had the resources to too.

And XMPP (1999).

I used to run Diaspora* on my home server for a while, thought it was cool. Stopped doing so when I realized no one used it.

Irc is not federated, though. Servers don't talk to each other