Wanting to post different things than you do on your main account, wanting some privacy from work or other related authorities, being on a number of different social networks, different social media accounts offering different things....and other benign and also harm related reasons. It's a bit like belonging to more than one social group or club in some ways.
Not at all, it's partly a societal thing, certainly far more than it's a platform thing (and I find cis men on the fediverse consistently confuse this). One thing I've observed repeatedly here in discussions of the fediverse is that privileged cis men constantly think that everyone automatically wants all the attention, that all attention is good and that anyone who wants something different from them is automatically wrong and irrational.
A lot of this has to do with how cis men of privilege exist in the world and are extended a type of safety and lack of real repercussions that many other people in society aren't at all. It's a reflection and related to cis men's expectations that everyone else will do their emotional labour (and the dishes, etc). It's a fundamental difference of perspective and incapacity or unwillingness to really value other perspectives fully (aka believe Othered people).
A lot of it is unconscious on the part of the men doing it here in the fediverse but it's also something a lot of cis men are in active denial about so get upset if it's brought up. Cis men deconstructing and truly understanding how patriarchy works (and how it's even worse in the business world) and then doing better about these things could actually contribute to real changes in our world (and are necessary for any real changes to occur).
@fifilamoura I had the most bizzare reason, probably I wanted to set up a Pixelfed instance for my plushies, and every plushie would have had their own account. I'd have 7 accounts just for plushies, then. but I didn't manage it, I got something wrong, so I never succeeded in setting it up
I'm starting collecting plushies again but idk, I don't feel like getting my own instance, so I'll just post them via this account
for me it has to do with options, and to filter content. For example a person with a account for free software topics and a second account for everything else.
If you are just interested in the person's posts about you FLOSS you can just follow the tech account and not the other.
For me I guess it boils down to be able to filter topics of an account.
@fifilamoura Because some people (me!) don't like the idea of publishing their entire lives online to everyone. Separate accounts allows you to compartmentalize your various interests, allowing more focussed conversations with a targetted social group.
My maths friends don't care for my mum's pictures of her holiday, and my mum is well capable of embarrassing me in front of my maths friends!
I do a lot of polls on my account at Mastodon. I get the same questions or requests multiple times, so I made this FAQ to make it easier to reply. Q: Why do you do so many polls? A: I like to think…
@me really? If a friend came to you and said, I think I need to set up 50,000 social media accounts, one for each character in the Chinese language, you would just say, sure, that's what everybody does?
Or would you give them some actual advice reflecting good practices for mental and social well-being?
I can respect that this is likely a question needing numbers as answers for later analysis.
I just can't read it though without a cacophony of notions, all in a shouting match and none are integers: "Procrustean bed" or "right up at the edge of silver rule violation" or "no man enters the same river twice because..." or "what even counts as a social network?" and none likely contribute usefully to anyone working to make a social network or some part of it better (or better understood).
I don’t think there should be a general limit. Needs differ from one person to the next.
Personally, I would love to unify everything I have under one identity. That might not be feasible for people who need alt accounts, or just want to break out their online identities into separate contexts.
I need a way to separate my personal/political and my professional public servant personas. Maybe also a way to separate between serious, shitposting, and personal posting. Presumably this should involve separate (but still federated) social network accounts.
Therefore, I have chosen 2 to 5.
It's sad that I only have one federated account that I regularly use, while Facebook and LinkedIn still rule the personal and professional dimensions of my online presence.
I'm not one to prescribe to others how many social network accounts they should have, but at the moment I'm happy with one (this one).
I do manage others for some organizations, including a few ActivityPub enabled WordPress sites (Thanx, @pfefferle !) , some with an account for each author. So maybe I should have picked "Six or more".
Many people have more than 6 as each social network caters to a different area in their lives (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn, Pinterest, etcetera).
I do not think one social network can do everything & do it well. However, you should be able to follow every social network from a single account.
As little or as many as they want, there’s nothing they “should” have.
But ideally? One per usage, i.e. if it’s posting the same things on each networks, then it’s an interoperability issue (i.e. walled gardens and not federated), and it could be only one.
But posting different things for different audiences on different networks each with their affordances, sure!
And if no usage, then zero is a perfectly good option.
I have started creating different accounts for different topics. It is a way of using the algorithms on other platforms to view similar content I am interested in seeing at that moment. I don’t always want to see food related content, so when I do , I connect with the account that follows only food content creators. Same thing with other topics such as politics or tech. I find I get disinterested in my feed on this account quite often since it is a broad mix of topics.
I do a lot of polls on my account at Mastodon. I get the same questions or requests multiple times, so I made this FAQ to make it easier to reply. Q: Why do you do so many polls? A: I like to think…
So, on to number of accounts. First, I think the idea that each person should have one account per social network service is bullshit. I should be able to follow people on any social network from whatever account I currently use.
Second, it's also broken to have one social network account per type of content shared (images, video, audio, documents, ...). We've had social networks that can handle different kinds of content since the mid 2000s. Segmenting networks on content is also bullshit.
So, I lean toward having just one account. However, I recognize that with other communications media, like email, we tend to have a small number of accounts: one personal, one for work or school, then a couple of throwaways for dating or selling furniture on Craigslist. I think with the roles a person can have a small number, like 2-5, makes the most sense.
Some people suggested having different accounts for different topics you post about -- music, tech, family, etc. I think this is better handled with addressable lists (send this post to my close friends and family, this one to my electric car friends, this one to my Linux friends, ...). More generally, hashtags can manage this, too. So, I don't think you need different accounts for different topics, unless you need to be able to disavow any connection to the topic (e.g. political or sexual).
@lakelady Our friends need to be nicer and more supportive about things we are interested in.
That said, having addressable lists (Diaspora* aspects, Google+ circles, Facebook friend lists) means you can proactively select just a few people to share with.
I don't believe in dictating how my friends should behave. I try to follow the golden rule . . . I don't like to have my feed flooded so I try not to flood the feed of others
I find creating, curating, and selecting lists takes much more time than simply having separate accounts.
This is the exact use case for why I set up this account. It turned out, the thousand or so followers on my "main" account aren't interested in esoteric posts about Tottenham Hotspur, and with there being no algorithm, I felt it better to create a separate account I could post "freely" on.
Using (guppe) groups works quite well when added to a list and excluded from main timeline. Can't add hashtags to lists, though.
Would love smthg like the old Google+ Circles if you remember those?
Women and queer people (particularly if we are also non-White) often have to worry about safety, this is another very important reason we sometimes choose anonymity to avoid making ourselves easy to track and abuse. I think a lot of cis men still underestimate the amount of quite extreme abuse the rest of us can be subjected to online and how that can easily move offline if we're easily identifiable.
@fifilamoura Agreed! I think personal safety is a big reason to keep separate accounts. I wonder how many more accounts make sense in that scenario, though. 1? 10? 100?
I have no idea and suspect that varies by individual. Of course, the ideal is people being able to manage their own safety online and off while also being identifiable but that is not the current world we live in or the current state of social media. And I'm not a fan of the panopticon in general (be it religious, governmental or technological/corporate) or this idea that people should always be publicly exposed (even in social situations, that's not how society works in the physical world either!). So it's always about balancing out the public and private sphere and the many different levels of both.
"Addressable lists" is exactly the functionality that LiveJournal used to have: you could put contacts on a list and mark your posts to be viewable only to a specific list. So you could make things be only visible to family, or only visible to people you were out to, not the general public, or only the people who shared your special interest. Anyone else didn't see a hidden post, didn't see any clue at all that the post existed.
I love your approach in this thread. That‘d be the dealbreaker to fix social. Funfact: I suggested your idea of posting into channels in private discussions with a bunch of social media nerds in the early days of Twitter. I‘m still with you, the idea is charming.
I dunno. I have four. One of withch is for content that some of my friends aren't necessarily comfortabl with, 2 for plurality (Although I migyht be moving all of that to just one her shortly) and one for professional because not veryone is ok with mulltiplicity in a pro setting, y'know?
on the other hand sometimes it's useful to have separate social accounts for various reasons. For example one that's ok to be completely public and another that you want to have more a more restricted audience. That's why I opted for more than a single account.
Fifi Lamoura
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Fifi Lamoura • • •Fifi Lamoura
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Fifi Lamoura • • •Fifi Lamoura
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Not at all, it's partly a societal thing, certainly far more than it's a platform thing (and I find cis men on the fediverse consistently confuse this). One thing I've observed repeatedly here in discussions of the fediverse is that privileged cis men constantly think that everyone automatically wants all the attention, that all attention is good and that anyone who wants something different from them is automatically wrong and irrational.
A lot of this has to do with how cis men of privilege exist in the world and are extended a type of safety and lack of real repercussions that many other people in society aren't at all. It's a reflection and related to cis men's expectations that everyone else will do their emotional labour (and the dishes, etc). It's a fundamental difference of perspective and incapacity or unwillingness to really value other perspectives fully (aka believe Othered people).
A lot of it is unconscious on the part of the men doing it here in the fediverse but it's also something a lot of cis men are in active denial about so get upset if it's brought up. Cis men deconstructing and truly understanding how patriarchy works (and how it's even worse in the business world) and then doing better about these things could actually contribute to real changes in our world (and are necessary for any real changes to occur).
Айсылу 🦊
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •@fifilamoura I had the most bizzare reason, probably
I wanted to set up a Pixelfed instance for my plushies, and every plushie would have had their own account. I'd have 7 accounts just for plushies, then. but I didn't manage it, I got something wrong, so I never succeeded in setting it up
I'm starting collecting plushies again but idk, I don't feel like getting my own instance, so I'll just post them via this account
maryjane :fediverso:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •for me it has to do with options, and to filter content. For example a person with a account for free software topics and a second account for everything else.
If you are just interested in the person's posts about you FLOSS you can just follow the tech account and not the other.
For me I guess it boils down to be able to filter topics of an account.
@fifilamoura
Khleedril
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •@fifilamoura Because some people (me!) don't like the idea of publishing their entire lives online to everyone. Separate accounts allows you to compartmentalize your various interests, allowing more focussed conversations with a targetted social group.
My maths friends don't care for my mum's pictures of her holiday, and my mum is well capable of embarrassing me in front of my maths friends!
BeAware :fediverse:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Johnydon :TheCDN3: he/him
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Johnydon :TheCDN3: he/him • • •Johnydon :TheCDN3: he/him
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Johnydon :TheCDN3: he/him • • •@Johny28 I made a new FAQ page for you.
https://evanp.me/pollfaq/#should
Poll FAQ
Evan Prodromou's BlogSimon | Síomón
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •@me really? If a friend came to you and said, I think I need to set up 50,000 social media accounts, one for each character in the Chinese language, you would just say, sure, that's what everybody does?
Or would you give them some actual advice reflecting good practices for mental and social well-being?
Titia Schuurman
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •pitch R.
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to pitch R. • • •pitch R.
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I am just joking. Usually i have accounts for certain fields of interest. this is my only "whole person" account.
So if i don't plan a hiking trip the followers and followees from the hiking account feel like is disappeared.
AccurstDemon
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Olivier Mehani
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I shouldn't _need_ any more than I want (think SSO and product/content gate-keeping).
I want 1. However, it may make sense to want more than 1 to split by interests/memberships/people groups if desired.
So I answered 2-5 as a non-prescriptive small number larger than 1.
Anꞇóin Ó B.
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Anꞇóin Ó B. • • •Anꞇóin Ó B.
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I can respect that this is likely a question needing numbers as answers for later analysis.
I just can't read it though without a cacophony of notions, all in a shouting match and none are integers: "Procrustean bed" or "right up at the edge of silver rule violation" or "no man enters the same river twice because..." or "what even counts as a social network?" and none likely contribute usefully to anyone working to make a social network or some part of it better (or better understood).
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Anꞇóin Ó B. • • •Sean Tilley
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I don’t think there should be a general limit. Needs differ from one person to the next.
Personally, I would love to unify everything I have under one identity. That might not be feasible for people who need alt accounts, or just want to break out their online identities into separate contexts.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Sean Tilley • • •Waxing and Waning
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •As many as they want, surely? I'm not sure it's my place to tell other people how many accounts to have.
Personally I can't handle more than two without making mistakes.
Ether Diver
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Ether Diver • • •Ether Diver
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Aaron Lord :csharp:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Aaron Lord :csharp: • • •Aaron Lord :csharp:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Mark Darbyshire
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I need a way to separate my personal/political and my professional public servant personas. Maybe also a way to separate between serious, shitposting, and personal posting. Presumably this should involve separate (but still federated) social network accounts.
Therefore, I have chosen 2 to 5.
It's sad that I only have one federated account that I regularly use, while Facebook and LinkedIn still rule the personal and professional dimensions of my online presence.
Bob Jonkman
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I'm not one to prescribe to others how many social network accounts they should have, but at the moment I'm happy with one (this one).
I do manage others for some organizations, including a few ActivityPub enabled WordPress sites (Thanx, @pfefferle !) , some with an account for each author. So maybe I should have picked "Six or more".
Darnell Clayton :verified:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Many people have more than 6 as each social network caters to a different area in their lives (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn, Pinterest, etcetera).
I do not think one social network can do everything & do it well. However, you should be able to follow every social network from a single account.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Darnell Clayton :verified: • • •nicolas ⁂
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •As little or as many as they want, there’s nothing they “should” have.
But ideally? One per usage, i.e. if it’s posting the same things on each networks, then it’s an interoperability issue (i.e. walled gardens and not federated), and it could be only one.
But posting different things for different audiences on different networks each with their affordances, sure!
And if no usage, then zero is a perfectly good option.
Stu
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I was going to ask for your definition of should before responding, before consulting RFC 2119.
Once a business analyst, always a business analyst, I guess.
Brecht Savelkoul
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Archnemysis
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Poll FAQ
Evan Prodromou's BlogEvan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •lakelady
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to lakelady • • •@lakelady Our friends need to be nicer and more supportive about things we are interested in.
That said, having addressable lists (Diaspora* aspects, Google+ circles, Facebook friend lists) means you can proactively select just a few people to share with.
lakelady
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I don't believe in dictating how my friends should behave. I try to follow the golden rule . . . I don't like to have my feed flooded so I try not to flood the feed of others
I find creating, curating, and selecting lists takes much more time than simply having separate accounts.
hallenbeck
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •This is the exact use case for why I set up this account. It turned out, the thousand or so followers on my "main" account aren't interested in esoteric posts about Tottenham Hotspur, and with there being no algorithm, I felt it better to create a separate account I could post "freely" on.
Using (guppe) groups works quite well when added to a list and excluded from main timeline. Can't add hashtags to lists, though.
Would love smthg like the old Google+ Circles if you remember those?
Fifi Lamoura
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Fifi Lamoura • • •Fifi Lamoura
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Kathmandu
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •So you could make things be only visible to family, or only visible to people you were out to, not the general public, or only the people who shared your special interest.
Anyone else didn't see a hidden post, didn't see any clue at all that the post existed.
Ralph Kühnl
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Michael Bishop ☕
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Michael Bishop ☕ • • •lakelady
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Scarlet Phoenix Collective
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •lakelady
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Matthew Booth
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Matthew Booth • • •lakelady
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •