Tumblr to join the Fediverse after WordPress migration completes
techcrunch.comI'm befuddled that Automattic is still investing in adding features (e.g. federation) to Tumblr. There's just about no chance of them actually making money from it, because its users are just about the most monetization-hostile users on the Internet.
It doesn't help that the CEO actively antagonized a large portion of the site not too long ago.
Their play is not to make money from Tumblr users, but to grow the total number of users connected to ActivityPub. Then they can go to BigCos and say "here it is, you can drop Twitter/Threads/Instagram/TikTok and control your social media presence directly."
It's not that different from what Facebook is doing with Threads. They are not interested in making money from social media, they are just hoping they can become the main infrastructure provider.
basically bring your own domain like Google Workspace or O365. I'd love to see the Mastodon project (or any other AP implementation) adopt that managed services model.
I've been trying that with Communick for over 5 years already, and (thanks for Trump and VP Elon) this was the first month where my revenue (barely) passed my operating costs.
Companies/agencies/media institutions are not interested in being trailblazers, so they will just go where they see their audience going, meaning Bluesky nowadays. On the other side, the absolute majority of end users still believe that (free) social media is not something worth paying for, and the most you'll see is people that contribute a few dollars per year "to cover hardware costs".
I don't believe there is anything stopping someone from starting a managed Mastodon service.
It’s absurdly expensive to offer, because none of the major implementations support serving multiple domains in a single process, so you end up with a lot of duplication.
I wonder if Meta's Threads is being built with that capability. I would expect an incumbent player to make an entrance into this market and they seem like the furthest along in capacity and capabilities.
Takahe is the only one that is doing it, but unfortunately Andrew stopped working on it.
this looks dope, I'm going to have to take a closer look now that I've heard of it. Does seem the project is in danger of being sunset unless new support comes in the way of the developer:
> TLDR: I am looking for new developers and maintainers for Takahē who want to help in exchange for my mentorship, or I'll have to sunset the project.
https://aeracode.org/2023/11/06/life-critical-side-projects/
The repo is still being updated so it doesn't look like it's in too much danger:
It seems that most of the work is going on at a fork, now: https://github.com/avaraline/incarnator
hooray! Thanks for sharing, this is great to see. I used to follow the ecosystem much more closely than I do now but I'm definitely looking to jump back in soon.
Isn't that what masto.host does anyway?
- masto.host
- mastodon.green
- social.lol
- communick.com
- cloud68.co
- elest.io
I couldn’t come up with a list of URLs I’d be less likely to trust with anything without visiting them.
godaddy.com
x.com
abc.xyz
I mean specifically, I'd like to see the actual Mastodon organization (Eugen Rochko's team now that they're a legit nonprofit) take that role. Or any other fedi software project tbh, doesn't need to be Mastodon themselves.
> It doesn't help that the CEO actively antagonized a large portion of the site not too long ago.
I love that this statement could apply to either Tumblr or WordPress. CEOs are such an expensive liability lately.
It's the same CEO! Ol' Matt pissed off the Tumblr userbase and then followed it up a year later with the WordPress debacle.
Oh shit, somehow I hadn’t put that together! Ha! Well played!
Ironically, I found the opposite. Tumblr users will pay Tumblr to "blaze" posts of other users, sending the post to everyone on the platform.
I don't think there are many platforms in which users are willing to give the platform money.
If you asked me whether I'd give money to support Reddit, I'd say just let it crash and burn.
Very few social platforms have figured out that the right way to get money is from the readers supporting the posters, not from the posters themselves.
Reddit gold is a pale version of this. Neither Twitter nor Bluesky show any signs of getting it.
Hard to say that isn't the "right way" when they are making money with it.
If we're talking hypothetical right ways, I think what "social" media gets wrong is to envision an anarchy for its users. People are never equal in a society. A teenager isn't the same thing as an elder, nor is a doctor the same thing as a nurse.
I think I've read before that anarchy doesn't work because eventually people find someone who is reliable and naturally that person becomes their authority on the subject, creating an hierarchy.
Social media tries to put all users in the same bucket even when it's well-known that most users belong in the "never posts anything" bucket while very few users belong in the "power user" bucket. There are passive users and active users.
While hierarchies can become ugly fast, I don't think resigning on implementing them in any form is the right answer, specially now that everyone is on the Internet.
What else would they invest long term capital into? Developing PHP is the only thing that could come to mind
> I'm befuddled that Automattic is still investing in adding features (e.g. federation) to Tumblr.
The article is saying the opposite though: they are not adding federation directly to Tumblr's own codebase. Instead, federation will come about from some planned future migration of Tumblr onto WordPress.com infrastructure, which already has that feature.
Paying Tumblr user here - I'm delighted to give them money to not have adverts!
If they're converting Tumblr to Wordpress, I bet it will get folded into their main hosting solution eventually and Tumblr will cease to exist.
That doesn't make sense. The primary use-case (and traffic driver) for Tumblr is a social network for logged-in users, similar to Twitter but with some differences in the feature set.
The public blog network is a minority of traffic. If you've never actually been a Tumblr user, you won't have an understanding of the product at all.
If Matt wasn't so fixated on WPEngine, he could actually do something important and radical by pushing Tumblr as a true user-controlled (i.e. each user has their own TLD) alternative to Twitter, BlueSky, Instagram, Threads, etc.
(Pure) ActivityPub would be the wrong basis for this. Its federated model is not meant to give control to the end user.
SOLID or ActivityPods, on the other hand...
>Its federated model is not meant to give control to the end user.
Can you elaborate on this? I would think giving control to the end user is exactly what a federated model would do.
It gives control to the node operator. You join a node on the basis that you like the operator and trust them to federate responsibly. The end user is along for the ride with the node operator.
That's not how it works in the case of WordPress though, in this case it's not posting to some account on someone else's instance, each blog is it's own ActivityPub instance (as they just add support for the ActivityPub endpoints to the existing hosting)
Mastodon suffers from the same problem Reddit does. Moderators have too much power.
A truly P2P system where the end user has 100% control over what is blocked, and furthermore where they can't be shut out in the cold by capricious mods, would be the ideal social media vehicle.
You can already control who and what you see by running your own server. If you choose to use someone else's infrastructure, don't act surprised when you're subject to their rules.
I'd agree with you, until I saw my own server on a quite popular blocklist because "admin is a cryptobro"
The thing is, other people are also allowed to control who and what they see. You're not entitled to an audience.
How many of these people are going through these blocklists to properly verify the claims?
And why should the users of my instance be penalized because someone found some reason to dislike me? If someone wants to block me, fine. But having the influence to push a whole server out of the wider network definitely counts as "too much power".
I want moderation on the platforms I go to. I don’t want to have to wade through cruft, even if there are false positives.
Also I don’t want anything pro-crypto on my feeds.
Can you guess how many people are talking about crypto on mastodon.social?
> Also I don’t want anything pro-crypto on my feeds.
Then just don't follow them?
Also, can you maybe try to be a little less judgemental? Your attitude is a perfect illustration for https://mastodon.social/@molily/113480811492965996
Attitude? My brother in Christ, you’re the one that wants to put crypto posts in my community.
You’re not entitled to an audience.
> that wants to put crypto posts
I wasn't. That's the point. It's been a long time since I stopped working with Ethereum and I always despised cryptocurrency as an speculation instrument. To take whatever I wrote about (ENS as an alternative for resolving identity without DNS or the handful of discussions about a guy working on ZK-proofs) as being a "crypto bro" is ridiculous, but I am sure that your prejudices will force you to disagree.
> in my community.
I wasn't chasing anyone around asking to follow me. If your server ended up getting some of my posts, go to the next HOA Mastodon meeting to complain to whoever in "your" community who did not toe the party line.
Because that is their right to do so, and if the users of that instance disagree they can migrate to another one fairly easily?
> if the users of that instance disagree they can migrate to another one fairly easily
How will they disagree, if they don't even get to know who is getting blocked?
Most instances publish lists of who they block. It's a user's choice if they decide to register at an instance that does not publish that list.
Users of an instance choose to place their trust in the instance moderator. If they feel they're being "punished", they're free to leave. It is insanely easy to change what instance you're on.
You're right, people do have the right to block whatever they want. But it's just shitty that someone else made the call, and now presumably many people are impacted. There's no recourse.
There is a recourse. Move instances.
Is your kid being pressured by their peers to conform? There is a solution for it, just change schools!
Do you seriously think spending thousands of dollars and uprooting your life is comparable to registering at a different social media website?
I think the absurdity of the proposition is justified.
I got banned from my city's subreddit for questioning why folks were against anti-crime (moderate Democrat) politicians running for the city mayor's office. Now I can't participate at all: I can't ask my community for recommendations, take up offers on free concert tickets that are frequently given out, etc. Where else do I go for that?
Social media is a common carrier, and unelected mods are unwanted and unjustified authoritarians.
It should all just be a protocol. No platforms.
> Now I can't participate at all: I can't ask my community for recommendations, take up offers on free concert tickets that are frequently given out, etc. Where else do I go for that?
A different subreddit. Make one yourself. If this censorship is truly so evil, won't people flock to join an alternative?
> Social media is a common carrier, and unelected mods are unwanted and unjustified authoritarians.
This is ridiculous. Other people's websites are not common carriers.
> A different subreddit. Make one yourself. If this censorship is truly so evil, won't people flock to join an alternative?
If network effects weren't a thing, there would be a million Facebooks and all of them would be popular. Because of network effects, we no longer have internet bulletin boards, and people congregate in few places rather than many. There's much greater utility in having folks together.
Similarly, subreddit /r/theModsOfMyCitySuckSoComeHereInstead will never gain traction. Once something is cemented as the default that the public uses, it's almost impossible to dislodge.
But you already know this.
> This is ridiculous. Other people's websites are not common carriers.
If they have a billion MAU, they should be. A billion MAU is more than the entire US population, which should more than suffice for "common carrier" designation.
Such websites are effectively public squares where everyone congregates, and because of aforementioned network effects, there are no alternatives. Banned individuals are effectively de-personed. It doesn't matter what the reasons for the ban are, the mere fact that it is possible removes freedom from the individual.
Unless someone breaks certain very particular rules (eg. raping children), they cannot be banned from the park, from the Internet, from email. If then, there's only one popular platform that has a monopoly on X, and billions of people are using that platform to communicate about it, then banning someone from said platform is the moral equivalent of removing them from parks or email.
Email is a perfect example of a protocol that succeeded before the platforms started to take over. It was early and everyone adopted it. We need a similar protocol for social media so your form of argument can't even be used. Preferably a P2P protocol instead of a federated one so that others can't impose their will onto third parties without their consent.
Just like the Mastodon folks lean hard left and want to censor conservative voices out of the mastoverse, the far right conservative folks want to step in and silence LGBT and non-WASP culture. It's the same thing, and the protocol should alleviate anyone from being a victim of ideologues on either side. Or from being a victom of capricious moderators that ban you for liking pineapple on pizza.
Every individual should be god of what they consume and publish, and everyone else is their own god of their own island. Nobody else should be butting in in front of two consenting parties.
You do realize that I am talking about an instance that I operate as a business and which has actual paying customers?
You are saying that it's okay for people to put my name on a list just because they have certain prejudices, and that it then becomes to other users to verify if the accusation is true?
Luckily for me, my customers are sensible people who are not particularly interested in following these drama-seeking, HOA personalities of Mastodon. They just want to go on with their lives and support someone who is at least providing a service and support the open web.
> You do realize that I am talking about an instance that I operate as a business and which has actual paying customers?
No, and I don't care, to be honest. Use a website and email for your business. Social media should be for humans, not companies.
I also can't comprehend the idea of paying to use Mastodon. What do your users get out of that? Surely not robust moderation, if you think blocking and defederating is so awful.
> Luckily for me, my customers are sensible people who are not particularly interested in following these drama-seeking, HOA personalities of Mastodon. They just want to go on with their lives and support someone who is at least providing a service and support the open web.
So then... this doesn't actually affect you at all?
> Social media should be for humans, not companies.
If you don't mind being put on boxes, then you probably won't mind if someone adds a screenshot of your posts next to this: https://mastodon.social/@molily/113480811492965996
> I also can't comprehend the idea of paying to use Mastodon.
It's not just Mastodon. The service I provide also gives accounts at Funkwhale, Lemmy and Matrix.
> Surely not robust moderation, if you think blocking and defederating is so awful.
It's the other way around. Because the instance is only for paying customers, and because the customers know that they put money on the line and will be kicked out if they do anything that violates the ToS, everyone is super nice and the instance is incredibly civil.
Wait, you have TOS? That sounds suspiciously like censorship.
Please, take a break and stop arguing with the amygdala.
My original complaint had nothing to do with "censorship", but with some moderators thinking that abusing blocklists is a legitimate way of pressuring peers.
In the end, you're just beefing with people whose moderation style doesn't match yours. I don't know what to say other than people can run their websites how they want.
Where I am "beefing" with anyone?
> I don't know what to say other than people can run their websites how they want.
It's one thing if said admin just blocked my instance and went on their merry way. It's another thing to actively go around bashing me on a very shallow accusation.
Seriously, please take a deep breath. I know that everyone is feeling a bit on edge nowadays, but I just said "yeah, some people do get a power trip from the moderation" and you are reacting like I've attacked your child. Relax.
I'm sitting here checking HN every half hour–hour or so, between chores and errands; you're responding much quicker, based on your timestamps, telling a perfectly calm person to "relax" and inferring that I'm being emotional about something I have no actual investment in.
Gosh, I can't imagine why any Fediverse admins might think you're obnoxious and want to block your instances.
Well that explains the line of reasoning pretty clearly.
You sound much better informed on the technical/plumbing details than I. Mainly I was trying to emphasize that the lock-in and high-switching cost from social networks comes from centralized control of the urls. If each content creator controlled their own domain, the discovery mechanism/feed could be separate.
"running Tumblr’s back end on WordPress would allow for greater efficiencies, while not changing the interface and experience that Tumblr’s user base has grown to love"
That's a lot to assert without elaboration.
"After migration completes," but they haven't even started it yet. Kinda skeptical that it's gonna happen at all.
After the migration can we have dicks on Tumblr again
For people who don’t know the backstory, back in the wild west days of the internet, Tumblr’s official content policy (and I’m not making this up) was “Go nuts! Show nuts. Whatever.”
When they changed it a lot of folks were unhappy https://www.tumblr.com/photomatt/696629352701493248/why-go-n...
Matt's already on there.
Can we expect another round of silly blocklists from the fediverse?
It depends on the server operator.
Threads was preemptively shitlisted just for thinking of connecting to Fediverse, because a lot of instance admins are ActivityPub or Mastodon maximalists[0] and believed that everyone would just flock over to Threads immediately.
Then it was shitlisted again because Mark Zuckerberg started zucking on Trump, and decided to take their already threadbare moderation team and tie their hands further. This is a more practical concern as most Fedi admins do not have the time or ability to deal with one mega-instance that happens to be both indispensable and willing to flood everyone with garbage.
I could see Tumblr getting shitlisted purely on the grounds of "fuck Matt Mullenweg", because Fedi admins are also hilariously petty[1]. But in practice, "just link Tumblr up to Fedi" is going to be just as much of a problem as "just link Threads up to Fedi".
There's an underlying tension between the Fediverse's technical underpinnings - ActivityPub - and the community of Fediverse servers that use it. The technology wants to be widely adopted, but the community wants to be small enough to avoid harassment and attacks[2], and these are in conflict. The Fediverse's structure is already a lot more centralized than anyone would like to admit, and scaling the network makes this problem worse.
[0] As opposed to general enthusiasm for federated communications technologies. See also the pushback Cory Doctorow got for backing Free our Feeds, a plan to make good on BlueSky's currently vacuous federation promises.
[1] This is why I self-host Mastodon even though it's a total pain in the ass.
[2] Like that one time a bunch of Japanese skiddies decided to spam literally every server from whatever accounts they could register
There is no tension. ActivityPub and its creator are well-aligned with the community. What you you are looking for is nostr, and if you find it more appealing you are free to choose it, that’s the beauty of open source.
Regarding [1], do you foresee this changing at some point? I'm interested in self hosting, bit have heard consistently that it is painful, so I've been waiting in the hopes that it will eventually improve.
Hosting Mastodon is as difficult as deploying a traditional web app: if you are familiar with docker, it's just a matter of choosing where you are going to put your database, redis and where to store media.
The problem is that it is expensive. Even if you host on a cheap VPS and put your media on some object storage like Storj (~$4/TB/month), you are problably looking at a minimum of $20/month for the server. If you get for yourself, maybe your friends and stay under 50 users, fine.
If you get more than that then you'll need a beefier server, and if any of users follows lots of media-heavy accounts and does not set it up to delete old posts, your object storage will be full very quick.
Pleroma was recommended to me as a less resource-intensive alternative to Mastodon and with less anti-features. It runs fine with one user on Hetzner's cheapest VPS.
I delete posts mirrored from other servers older than 90 days with a cron job. It has a command to do this.
Pleroma and GoToSocial are indeed better if you are looking for something more efficient.
But I am still not happy with the idea that we should be deleting data from the server just to keep it manageable. It reminds of the before Gmail where people would get 5MB quota of Yahoo Mail and would have to go around deleting stuff from their mailboxes every other month.
Then don't, and upgrade your server by something on the order of 40GB every year.
Regarding the object store: I use DigitalOcean’s Spaces, and it runs me about $9/mo. I have about 4K users. It doesn’t have to be expensive.
There are extreme ideological distinctions between Facebook and Tumblr that you're ignoring. Suggesting ideology only came into it with Trump and that the Threads pushback was about the spectre of a competitor's popularity is very strange. As is the "Fedi admins are petty, but not me, a Fedi admin" commentary. People had well-founded and widely varied concerns about Meta joining the fediverse. It had nothing to do with wanting to remain in obscurity; just about every fedi user I've ever encountered is absolutely begging everyone on social media to join.
> The Fediverse's structure is already a lot more centralized than anyone would like to admit
Hi, I'm "anyone", and: no it isn't? Technically and philosophically, no it isn't. Large instances are not a failure of decentralisation, because as you evidently know, their existence does not preclude you or anyone else setting up a server and federating. There's no universe in which "scaling the network" reduces decentralisation, in fact it's the solution to the "fuck Matt Mullenweg" situation you speculate about. The less homogenous fedi admins become, the more the network is sustained by people who don't even know who he is. Your comment is rife with generalisations about the motivations of people on the fediverse, but it's far less monolithic than you think.
That would be the logical expectation. Fediverse maintainers can be worse than Reddit mods in how aggressively they ban users and instances
I'd assume not. Tumblr isn't anywhere near as big a player in the social media arena as Meta is.
defederators are morons, but they're the same class of moron from Tumblr that invented things like the "DNI list"
You don't like free association?
I'd gamble that it'll be less so than the response to Threads. Tumblr users, on average, are generally a better culture fit than Facebook/Instagram ones.
Users? Yes. Owner? No.