No, not really. While no doubt there are very similar features, the intent of pixelfed is different from instagram. Instagram is centralized and controlled by a single entity...while pixelfed is decentralized - or at least federated (not unlike email federation) - and different participants can interact (or not) with others. If pixelfed, and mastodon, pleroma, etc. aren't evidence enough, many users are somewhat fed up with the centralized silos, and wish to circle back into smaller communities. Platforms like pixelfed (and other platforms) allow for that cozy feel while still allow for interaction with other communities. It can actually be refreshing.
If the only difference is the fact that is' decentralized that doesn't really make it that different from Instagram. The objective is still the same, looking at pictures people post and interacting with them.
Understood, i see what you are referring to. Then yes - generally speaking - Instagram and Pixelfed both allow for users to post pictures and allow interaction based on them...the differences between these platforms then become more about for example how those functions are achieved (centralized vs decentralized/federated), and how much control one has over one's own data/content.
It is my opinion that one of the platforms allows for far more freedom/liberty and control of one's data and presence...while the other one is Instagram.
You might be right about people not being interested in federation on a conceptual level (or not, I don't know), but people certainly are interested in the benefits of federation can bring. People want more robust hosting, lower costs, and less dependence on centralized services. I think it's unlikely anyone would sign up to a 'new Instagram' built on this specifically because it's based on federatation but if it was marketed as more robust, cheaper and not dependent on Facebook then I can see non-tech people being curious about it.
People want more robust hosting, lower costs, and less dependence on centralized services.
The people outside of tech circles that I know just want images to show up and they don't want to pay for them. I guess that those would fall under the "robust hosting, lower costs" section in a roundabout way, but "less dependence on centralized services" is pretty much the opposite of what people want from my experience.
If you meet more people then you'll meet people who are interested in the benefits of federated content.
If I meet more people then I will too, but I already know some so it won't make much difference. Maybe it'd reinforce what I already know.
The problem is your admission that it's "pretty much the opposite of what people want from my experience". You don't have enough experience. Ergo... meet more people.
What people do care about is being able to seamlessly use different platforms. Traditional services like Twitter, Fb, or Youtube are silos. The companies running these platforms have zero incentive to allow you to share data between them, and make it difficult for users to extract the data from the platform.
ActivityPub based federation flips this model on its head. All the services can talk to each other, and you can be using one service while your friends use another, and still be able to interact and share content. This is a huge feature for end users.
No. People don't care about that. This is from our perspective, as tech users we are concerned about centralization and silos. The users aren't concerned with silos, because websites such as Instagram have so much pulling power, that everyone is already there. You don't have to worry about sharing data with other services because all your followers are on Instagram anyway.
People very much care about having to juggle a bunch of accounts and not being able to share things with their friends because they're using a different platform.
Impact Theory hosted by Tom Bilyeu - "An interview series that explores the mindsets of the world's highest achievers to learn their secrets of success."
