• ohmyiv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought circles was the best idea. I loved having a bit more control over posts. Unfortunately, only two of my friends used it, so it was worthless for me for the most part.

    • qzdyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I enjoyed it as well. It was pretty cool. Then I became busy with other stuff and one day I heard the news that G+ would be shut down.

      • figaro@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If only you stayed active on it, Google wouldn’t have shut it down.

        Kidding lol. I used it too, it was pretty sweet. It felt like a mix of Twitter and Tumblr.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was a pretty cool platform but their biggest problem was making it invite only, therefore forcing it to be smaller than competing platforms. Invite only may work for Gmail but not for social media.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I also enjoyed Google+. I liked the app and the interface. The content was pretty good for a bit.

    • dimlo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really know what is the problem with google+ except they are born in the wrong time where Facebook are still on the rise, instagram is new and trendy and Zuckerberg is not dreaming on metaverse

      • Gazumbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        One of the things that probably killed it was Google enforcing people to use their real names on there. Which of course affected also commenting on YouTube as well.

        I quite liked Google+ overall. Would have been good to have a proper competitor to Facebook.

    • malloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What did you like about it? It was basic af from what I remember. It was a FB clone, at best.

      • Gazumbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        One of its plus points (no pun intended) was that it was the first social media platform to allow more granular control over who saw your posts. You could people to ‘circles’ and limit posts to which ever circles of friends you selected (if I’m remembering this correctly).

        I think at that time on Facebook, you only had the option of Public, Friends or Private. It spurred Facebook on to introduce more granular control as well. So if nothing else, Google+ was good for that.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Touche…

      Pour one out for project Ara, everyone… And the hundreds of other companies that had a bright future before Google bought and destroyed them.

        • Hazzard@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gotta be Google Play Music I’m still bitter about. YouTube music doesn’t hold a candle to it, and I’ve never quite been as happy with Spotify or Apple Music. Getting YT Premium with a good music service was great too, but they shot themselves in the foot.

          And there’s was just… no reason for it. They even delayed its death when they realized how crap YT Music was, and then later just… decided to do it anyways.

        • Nusm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was so upset about it that I almost de-Googled. And I was all-in on the Google ecosystem. In the end I begrudgingly continued on because I didn’t have the time or energy to find replacements for everything.

          But yes, I’m still angry over it. I like NewsBlur, it does everything I need, but I still miss Google Reader, and I would go back to it in a second.

    • Shadesto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google made a huge mistake shutting down Google+. If they had built it out to integrate with Youtube, where people could have a space to Tweet, have a Main Page feed like Facebook, and post videos all in the same platform, they would have dominated the market.

      I still have a hard time believing that no-one has created a platform that encompasses all of those things. Meta is doing it piece-meal but it’s all disorganized. It should be one unified platform.

      That’s why I hope some developers start working on a way to integrate Lemmy and Mastodon and like… PeerTube together into a single frontend. I’d love to be able to manage my Mastodon posts and BS on Lemmy in the same website.

  • BeezKnuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean this post has 1200 upvotes. Considering most people don’t engage with the voting system that makes me think that there’s a decent amount of people here. At the very least it means there’s a lot of people here who engage with the community. More come every day. If this post were on Reddit, it would be on r/all right now. That’s not bad for a community with a fraction of the users.

    I think that in 10 years this place will be doing alright. I think the growth that’s happened in the last few months won’t last, but I think that growth will still steadily happen. The reddexodus doesn’t happen every day but with most social media platforms shitting their geriatric pants more and more lately, I think a consistent flow of refugees will come here.

  • HiramFromTheChi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    The beauty of the Fediverse is that no single entity controls it… In 12 years, I’d wager we’re still around.

    • elkaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would wager most of nowadays instances have either fallen into obscurity or just finished existing, I think we will see instancea more focused in scalability if thr fediverse grows in popularity, whoch will kind of dominate the space.

        • elkaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I had to guess for a few I would say beehaw and lemm.ee will also still be alive in some way or another, but I dont think they will keep being as big in proportion to other instances as they are now.

          • Joseph Finger@freiburg.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This ! Also, I’m kind of disappointed how many of my peers just waited for the #reddit #blackout to pass, so they can go back to buissness as usual. Supringsingly, to me, there are a lot of people who enjoy corponet just fine.

            • HiramFromTheChi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, a temporary protest was not gonna do the trick. But hey, oftentimes, things gotta get worse before the get better.

              It’s just a matter of how much worse.

      • HiramFromTheChi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        With open source and interoperability, this is a good thing, because then you can choose the experience you wanna have. You’re not bound to a single vendor-locked platform that’s subject to continuity issues or a degraded experience that forces you to move elsewhere and start over in terms of following/followers. You simply pack up and migrate to another instance.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m still wishing the internet could go back to how it was in the 90’s so I’m hoping it will continue to look the same in 12 years.

  • The Giant Korean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I kind of feel like a single Lemmy instance will domonate dominate and become the defacto instance that everyone just joins.

    • ruben@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Since people post to channels that you can search for and subscribe to, there is no incentive for that to happen.

      • CCL@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        unless one just feeds you tons of ads and harvests user data. That’s one reason why Gab, which is a fork of Mastodon, was defederated from most of the 'verse before Gab just went ahead and turned federation off.

        You could create a Lemmy instance that made it far less user friendly to connect to other communities, and “forced” other users to join its communities because ‘that’s where everyone is’. That’s one of the reasons why there is so much fuss over how to handle threads.net when/if they turn on federation.

    • H4Lambda@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The whole system is crap.

      We should have gotten something that’s actually decentralised and P2P like Aether.

      What we got was centralised servers + a glorified RSS feed that enables even more echo chambers than Reddit did… The fediverse is doomed to remain irrelevant imho

    • Joseph Finger@freiburg.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Simple fix, just don’t join big instances, create new communities on small instances and self-host. If everybody does so, nobody has an interest into coercing users in a hermetic system, because they have far more to loose through possible defederation

    • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think that’s against the plan with Lemmy and distributed instances, but they can improve sign up, and make it possible to migrate your user between instances, or do some unique username across all instances.

      A cool feature would also be that a user could backup all their posts and votes.

    • CCL@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think a big help to avoid this is if any “official” apps automatically point to something like lemmyverse search or Fediverse Observer rather than Join Lemmy or any single instance.
      Mastodon.socialwas already by far the largest before the only app named “mastodon” available in the major mobile repositories was built to automatically have you create an account on mastodon.social to “Make it easier for the normies”.

      The fact that I dont’ even know the name of any lead developers of #lemmy as opposed to /u/gargon@mastodon.social is probably a good sign too.

  • dunestorm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why you should never adopt Google services, there’s a high chance they will kill it off given their awful track record.

    • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the biggest miss Google had was with Google Wave. It was way ahead of its time, and absolutely crashed and burned at launch because of the invite-only model.

      I bought a Google OnHub router, which was amazing. It was marketed as the most “future-proof” router at the time. Then Google made Google WiFi mesh routers around a year later, and OnHub was never marketed or mentioned again. Now, in addition to my already concerning privacy issues around Google services, I don’t trust that they will release quality, supported products.

      • FightMilk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I started reading your comment and thought “please be about Wave” haha. The funniest part about Wave is how they learned no lessons from it.

        The invite-only model worked great for Gmail because it was an actual service with real utility and people wanted in (1GB storage was huuuuge). But with social networks, the courting ritual is reversed, because without a critical mass of users the product has no utility.

        So what do they do with G+? Invite only 🤦‍♂️

        And by then they had something like half the world running Android, with Google accounts… and didn’t just let them in. Youtube should have been a simple “if you want to check out G+, your Youtube account will get you in, otherwise carry on.” Instead they make it invite only and then bully youtubers into registering.

        It’s just mind-boggling how little they understood about social networks after building such a wonderful piece of software for it.

  • macrocephalic@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t really get what the hate was for Google+, it was better than the alternative/competitor at the time (Facebook)

    • crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was definitely much better than Facebook at the time. Especially the concept of circles that they implemented.

    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google wasn’t comfortable in letting it grow naturally over time. They tried really hard to push on people by combining it with other more popular google products when it didn’t really make sense (i.e. Youtube). Also, as a teen at the time google plus just felt nerdy and weird. It didn’t really feel like something they cool kids would use so no one used it.

      • R51@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that’s how I felt too. I remember being excited about g+, then I also remember aggressively turning off any association to g+ because no one was on it and it kept pushing it in my face. Come to think of it gmail was similar, invite only and that, but it wasn’t forced even at release and they made it look a lot nicer than what yahoo and hotmail had going on at the time.

    • TheyKeepOnRising@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google+ forced itself on people. I didn’t want it so I stopped using my Gmail entirely. I imagine word of mouth caused people to avoid it.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And the ridiculous part on top of that is that it was the exact opposite situation at first. When it first launched, you had to be a friend of a friend of a Google employee to register or you weren’t getting in. It took me a about a month before a friend of mine studying CompSci at university with the kid of some Google employee was able to pass an invitation my way.

        I get the purpose was to generate hype by making it seem “exclusive” like Facebook was in the early days, but it took way too long before the people who genuinely wanted to use it were allowed to openly register for it. It was like that for 3 months, and a lot of people who gave up on trying to get an invite lost interest after the initial buzz died down.

        And then Google wasn’t satisfied with upsetting the people that wanted to use it, so they had to go and upset the people who didn’t want to use it by later forcing it on everyone with a Google account.

        • snor10@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s kind of funny, isn’t this exactly what Meta is doing to everyone with an Instagram account? You have a shadow profile on Threads regardless if you signed up or not.

          I wonder why the reaction is so different, maybe because they both are social media? Or maybe just good timing with the whole Twitter debaucle.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think there is still concern. When Threads launched, the media was full of articles outlining commonly-stated concerns about privacy and the involuntary connection between Instagram and Threads.

            The problem is that zoomers who are flocking to it in droves don’t seem to care about any of that. And I don’t think it’s due to ignorance, but probably more like generational defeatism.

            • snor10@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, there has for shure been a shift in the culture. Privacy doesn’t seem to be that big of a concern for most.

              I’m not so sure it’s just the zoomers that are to blame, plenty of older people don’t seem to care either. But I do feel for the younger generation, having never known the freedom and joys of the pre-corporate internet. Then again, maybe ignorance is bliss after all.

    • debounced@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      and from what i remember, staying true to typical google fashion, they fucked it up by not opening up the “beta” when they had a critical mass forming behind it. then only to force everyone into having a profile a year or whatever later. lol, too late. i think most of us understood that anything associated with google is assumed to be a never-ending “beta”, so no idea what they were thinking or waiting for.

      • MetalFingers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it was definitely the super long beta period where you needed an invite killed it. I knew a ton of people who were interested that gave up

        • kadu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s easy to say now, but Orkut (another Google social network, mostly used in Brazil) also had a beta invite system… And that helped it grow tremendously. The secrecy and “status” of getting invited made people go wild - they would even sell invites.

          The strategy can work. It’s just very timing sensitive.

          • adude007@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Orkut was young when Facebook access was still restricted to college kids only. Google+ was dumb. You’d get and then it was just tumble weeds.

    • twistedtxb@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The concept of who you chose to share your status was cumbersome. It at least not auntie or uncle friendly

      I don’t remember what it was called? Spaces?

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t remember what it was called? Spaces?

        Circles. It was a killer feature at the time, the idea of different feeds for different groups, all in one profile. Too bad there weren’t enough groups to make it useful.

    • cyrusg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was good but it didn’t really add enough or solve an actual problem. At the time, there wasn’t as much negative sentiment around Facebook. The circles were a neat concept but too much work to use for the average user.

      • Erk@cdda.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s strange to note that if Google had just casually worked on the feature, started gradually integrating it with YouTube etc, they might have beat insta to the punch and also really capitalized on Facebook hate. Instead they made one massive marketing blunder after another.

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It made me think: can a Lemmy instance be hosted on a local network.

      Like if the global internet is down but we maintained a local network in the village. Can we use Lemmy or mastodon?

      Maybe when we have a good weather we manage to connect to the next village, so can we connect to their instance at this moment ?

      • p1mrx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is straightforward to run an isolated network with TCP/IP, DNS, and web servers. The hard part would be dealing with software that complains/fails if you’re not using HTTPS.

        In general, you would want an offline copy of the entire software stack (e.g. a Gentoo Linux mirror) so you can patch whatever problems you encounter.

        • Jelloeater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You would have to run your own CA and get everyone to install your root cert on their devices. That what happens already with tech like smart cards and SSL inspection firewalls. It’s all about trusting the connection implicitly.

          • Agent641@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Mate I dont trust you”

            “Its okay, I have a certificate”

            “This just says ‘Trust me bro’ and has your name at the bottom.”

            “If you still dont trust me, just call this guy, he will vouch for me!”

            “This is your own phone number.”

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would mpst likely come down to infrastructure maintenance capacity, so if we’re tallking regional or sub-regional maybe. For example southern california probably has enough industrial capacity that so long as raw materials can be acquired maintence would be relatively simple. But if we’re talking scattered individual townships without much intertown services then a BBS would probably be easier and more practical to maintain.

      • lemming007@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t need a social network in a village, I’ll just step out of my house and yell.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Depends on how dense or spread out it is. If it’s dense and everything is in one place you might not need anything more than just going outside.

          If it is spread out though you may want communication methods other than mail and if people already have the computers and existing infrastructure (many places have cables for network and phone lines) to set up a local network then that might be the best option.

  • samokosik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I honestly hope lemmy will not die. It will have to become simpler though. For many people, it will be simply way too complicated to wrap their head around the fact of many instances and most of them will worry about not being able to interact with people from other instances.

    Also, the main lemmy web app is not necessarily good and alternatives such as wefwef are far easier to use.

    • Deuces@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We just need to be better about simplifying the explanation. Don’t tell people “it’s a federated website using an activitypub backend to communicate like mastodon, but only links to federated lemmys not including mastodon instances…” Tell them “it’s a fourm that shares posts and comments with other fourms that agree to work together”. If they want more detail they can easily find it themselves.

      • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Federation is the invisible glue that makes it all work… I have my own server but i can talk to you on lemmy.world without having to think about it or do anything special. Most people joining in the future won’t need to care federation even exists, just like they don’t care SMTP exists.

        That said I suspect there will be a few mega servers anyway… just like gmail… people seem to like being where everyone else is.

      • DSX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like the explanation using email as an example works pretty well. Most people understand how different emails from different providers can communicate, but their account is hosted on one platform.

        • narF@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Even better is to talk about phone carriers, because people seem to know those better than emails these days. “Just because your phone is using Carrier A doesn’t mean you can’t call your friends on Carriers B and C”

  • Omsorg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I actually liked Google plus… but like everything Google create, they killed it.

    • alnilam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I liked the idea of circles. I’m part of multiple social circles and what might be interesting for one could very well be meaningless for another circle.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “circles” were awesome. It was a breeze to tweak your feed based on which circle you put someone in. Rather than get all the posts from a very hit or miss account I could pretty much say “only the top posts”.

        • narF@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eventually, Facebook and Twitter copied the feature, so Google+ lost its advantage.

      • JoYo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        per post scoping was nice.

        I didn’t have to manually tag each account, just select the circle and publish.

  • ⚡⚡⚡@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The cool thing: There will be at least 1 instance left (probably), because there is not central entity that can stop it. If lemmy.workd goes down, all others are still there. If the developers die, someone can fork it and continue developing it…