I've spent about ten minutes poking around that link and I'm still not at all sure what kind of tool Satellite either is or wants me to think of it as. Front page:
> Satellite is an alternative space for writers and the beginning of an entirely new kind of network
O...k? Alternative to what? New how? Presumably "alternative" here means the space is an alternative to other spaces (not a space for alternatives) and "new" means "there are features other things don't have" (not "we made it a week ago") but it's very vague branding. What are the commonly-known alternatives so I have an existing idea to latch on to? What are the new features? Moving on, it appears that wasn't actually the front page - clicking through to the named front page:
> a free, open, and unstoppable network better aligned with the interests of humanity
To do what! I gather this is a writing platform, but is it akin to blogging where individuals regularly put out articles? Scientific publishing that enforces a web of citations? Both? Can I have friends/subscribers of sorts? If so, do they also have to be Satellite members? Do my posts appear on any sort of front page anywhere? I'm still very befuddled at how the tool wants me to use it. Mastodon seems like the closest competitor, what does Satellite bring to the party?
> Open protocols and data ownership
Great! I like those things. But I'm only going to choose to use a tool if it has those things after it satisfies my primary use cases. Using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail is stupid if you do it just because the screwdriver has an open source CAD file somewhere.
I'm sorry if this all comes across as harsh -- I'm trying to be as straightforward as possible. I'm not at all certain if I'm Satellite's target audience, but if I am I am already disinclined to try and find out more. Tech bro hype over trivial things (or even stupid things) has completely burnt me out on new web stuff that tries too hard and doesn't respect my attention. I very much appreciate tools that are a little opinionated and a lot forthcoming about their intended uses so I don't feel like my attention has been hijacked or co-opted. If the tool is for me, great. I know what my pains are and it's not difficult for me to imagine what it might take for them to go away and you'll win me over if I can fit you into that thought. If the tool is not for me, that's also fine! It might be for someone else. But I'm not going to spend the effort to figure that out. If I have to, it's already not for me.
That said, the website is very pretty. I'm always a fan of those dynamical network images, and the layout & typographical styling is very appealing.
I'm so close to the product after building it that it's not obvious to me which things are not obvious to other people seeing it for the first time, so thank you, this is very valuable feedback!
> is it akin to blogging where individuals regularly put out articles
Sort of. I think of being modeled after a text-based subreddit.
> Scientific publishing that enforces a web of citations
It's doesn't enforce citations, but it does have a credibility mechanism. That's what the "stars" on each item are supposed to be doing. When a writer stars another person's article, a link gets created to them in the constellation. The constellation is intended to visualize the web of ideas that connects people. It could probably be improved upon to be more functional and not just an art piece!
> Can I have friends/subscribers of sorts?
Yes. Other people on Satellite can subscribe to you, and people can also subscribe to get new posts sent to them via email without having to make an account. In this sense it's similar to Substack.
> Do my posts appear on any sort of front page anywhere?
Yes. All posts appear on the front page immediately under the "new" feed. Top-starred posts appear on the front page under the "top" feed. The subscribed feed just filters the posts from people who you're subscribed to.
> I'm still very befuddled at how the tool wants me to use it.
Basically the idea is you post articles and comment on other peoples articles. Everyone has a their own blog page at /@<username>
> Mastodon seems like the closest competitor, what does Satellite bring to the party?
The biggest difference is that every post on Satellite is digitally signed. Satellite supports signing with a local wallet, but it's not required. Another thing Satellite offers is data permanence. Every 28 days, all the data is archived in a kind of "snapshot" and added to IPFS as a kind of insurance for users that the value of their contributions won't be totally lost, even if Satellite shuts down (which is one problem with Mastodon, that all your data depends on being hosted by one instance). Another thing thing that archiving does is that makes the network "forkable" which I think is going to be an important part of how social media works in the future.
> If the tool is not for me, that's also fine! It might be for someone else.
In any case, I really appreciate you taking the time to engage :)
> The biggest difference is that every post on Satellite is digitally signed
that's not a very compelling difference for most people. Definitely not enough to get other people to sign up and follow you on it.
I've followed hundreds of people with no form of validation and I just don't care. It's good to know that the account claiming to be the president is actually the president's account (and other similar political or popular figures) but for the other 99% i really don't have to worry that it's someone else pretending to be them.
And then there's the fact that signing only proves that it's the same account holder posting not that they're who they claim to be.
The snapshot to IPFS is ... meh. Most people don't care about what they said on a microblog a year ago, and very few have a clue what IPFS is, or how they'd do anything with an IPFS backup.
The problem with a mastodon instance shutting down is only slightly about the lost data. It's much more about the lost account and connection to your followers and the people you follow.
Nothing you've said sounds bad. They're nifty things, but they're also not compelling enough to overcome the network effect on other networks and they're not features I can actively use that offer me something notable i can't get elsewhere.
> Satellite is an alternative space for writers and the beginning of an entirely new kind of network
O...k? Alternative to what? New how? Presumably "alternative" here means the space is an alternative to other spaces (not a space for alternatives) and "new" means "there are features other things don't have" (not "we made it a week ago") but it's very vague branding. What are the commonly-known alternatives so I have an existing idea to latch on to? What are the new features? Moving on, it appears that wasn't actually the front page - clicking through to the named front page:
> a free, open, and unstoppable network better aligned with the interests of humanity
To do what! I gather this is a writing platform, but is it akin to blogging where individuals regularly put out articles? Scientific publishing that enforces a web of citations? Both? Can I have friends/subscribers of sorts? If so, do they also have to be Satellite members? Do my posts appear on any sort of front page anywhere? I'm still very befuddled at how the tool wants me to use it. Mastodon seems like the closest competitor, what does Satellite bring to the party?
> Open protocols and data ownership
Great! I like those things. But I'm only going to choose to use a tool if it has those things after it satisfies my primary use cases. Using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail is stupid if you do it just because the screwdriver has an open source CAD file somewhere.
I'm sorry if this all comes across as harsh -- I'm trying to be as straightforward as possible. I'm not at all certain if I'm Satellite's target audience, but if I am I am already disinclined to try and find out more. Tech bro hype over trivial things (or even stupid things) has completely burnt me out on new web stuff that tries too hard and doesn't respect my attention. I very much appreciate tools that are a little opinionated and a lot forthcoming about their intended uses so I don't feel like my attention has been hijacked or co-opted. If the tool is for me, great. I know what my pains are and it's not difficult for me to imagine what it might take for them to go away and you'll win me over if I can fit you into that thought. If the tool is not for me, that's also fine! It might be for someone else. But I'm not going to spend the effort to figure that out. If I have to, it's already not for me.
That said, the website is very pretty. I'm always a fan of those dynamical network images, and the layout & typographical styling is very appealing.