I was told something like this about an article I was pointing out wasn't on page 1 of google, but was on virtually all other engines. "Unless it's page 1 of google nobody cares"

And all I can say is "who cares? those aren't the people it's for"

[–] M33@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I agree, I do the same. But the second part of your reply « who cares those aren’t the guys », years and years watching the fediverse trying to kickstart the whole thing proves it wrong . We, fediverse users, do need those people onboard

[–] miguel@fedia.io 7 points 3 days ago

What "kickstart"? The fediverse isn't a commercial venture. If we can connect with our friends and interests, it's already "working". I find fantastic new people here all the time, doing really niche stuff I'd never find on a platform focused on appealing to everyone.

If "99%" of people aren't on it, that's perfectly acceptable, and just makes it easier for the ones on it to find and talk to their friends. I don't think we need or want the vast torrent of spammers, downvote bots, and "influencer" types who use whatever gives them clicks.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The mass protests against Threads leads me to believe that is actually the opposite of the truth.

[–] M33@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well that’s actually a great thing: many instances will defederate/block thread, some will federate. Freedom of choice

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ok but that contradicts your previous comment

[–] M33@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 days ago

I don’t see why, it’s simple as much as I enjoy the fediverse ideology the current status of this part of internet show how little it is relevant the the vast majority of people. And yet it’s a good thing to allow both fediverse purists and ones that don’t care connecting with the « others » social networks live together.