4 ms·

I wrote a companion piece that explains what makes Mastodon better than Twitter. It starts like this: > Mastodon is a newcomer social media platform that is a

I wrote a companion piece that explains what makes Mastodon better than Twitter. It starts like this: > Mastodon is a newcomer social media platform that is a lot like Twitter—short messages, followers, hashtags, all that. But Mastodon is much better than Twitter, and not just because being totally ad-free and keeping chronological timelines make it far more enjoyable to use (though that certainly helps!). All that is nice, but the real advantage Mastodon has over Twitter is that Mastodon is not an outrage machine that's corroding our ability to view our politic opponents as real humans, deserving of sympathy and understanding. To explain how much better Mastodon is, I'm going to give you three examples of how Mastodon is better, and then I'll step back and talk about why Mastodon is better. https://www.codesections.com/blog/mastodon-elevator-pitch/ https://www.codesections.com/blog/mastodon-elevator-pitch/

colordrops 8y ago
"outrage machine". What a perfectly succinct description. That said, Mastodon would likely turn into an outrage machine if it ever reached critical mass. I suppose you could stay in your own mastodon instance to avoid it.
manigandham 8y ago
It's the people that bring the outrage, not the platform itself. Anything that reaches a certain scale will start to become it, it's part of human nature and something we haven't had sufficient time to learn and evolve past.
nafey 8y ago
I wonder if in the long run Mastodon will still not be an "outrage machine". Twitter also didn't start out as a vent for political outrage, but as a platform grows it gets more bad apples. In the case of Mastodon it's decentralized nature actually provides them more security. It will be interesting to see it play out.
- merinowool 8y ago
  It will be easier for governments to shut down small instances and smear the owners. I don't think decentralisation has much security value.
  - phs318u 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole
    - manigandham 8y ago
      This always ignores the fact that several things like networks and server hosts are still fairly centralized. Unless everyone is running instances on their mobile phones using a giant global mesh, it is perfectly within the capabilities of modern nation states to shutdown these networks.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- Vinnl 8y ago
  I have a feeling it already is one. In my timeline there are a lot of LGBQT activists (which I think is the case for much of Mastodon at the moment?), and since I generally agree with how they'd like to see the world and am otherwise not really involved with that movement, I don't really interact with those posts. However, I see a lot of "I simply blocked this hateful person lalalalalala" which makes me, as an outsider, feel uncomfortable, and I feel hesitant even to try to respond with even a slightly different view.
  - apatters 8y ago
    If you look at the adoption pattern and growth rate of Mastodon, it has around 1.5M users, the majority of which have arrived via three big waves. The first wave was people with left wing identities who were tired of being harassed on mainstream platforms like Twitter. The second wave was Japanese lolicon enthusiasts (without diving too deep down this rabbit hole, lolicon is a popular but weird and nerdy thing to be into in Japan). The third wave was sex workers in response to SESTA/FOSTA eliminating platforms they used in the past. All these waves set up their own instances, and they don't communicate much with the other waves. If you look at what these waves all have in common (aside from using the software), there's just one thing. They were all posting stuff that didn't fit in on a mainstream platform. In the first case it was due to harassment, in the second it was embarrassment, in the third it was legality. The users are already bifurcating the network, admins routinely share blocklists of sites that they don't want included in their version of the fediverse. Being able to block instances and people you don't like is one of Mastodon's killer features. I don't think it will become the next outrage machine, people will just block and bifurcate. I do think users will keep setting up Mastodon instances in waves similar to the first three. I'd be surprised if Mastodon ever powered a better version of the commons we currently have on FB, Twitter etc. [1] The feature Mastodon added to federation (and that made it more popular than similar software) is the ability to not federate with people who are different from you. [1] The "fediverse" at large has some potential to do this if it receives mass adoption. Think of a scenario like WordPress integrating federation features into the Core. This would bring federation to the mainstream.
    - intothemild 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
elboru 8y ago
Wouldn’t a decentralized social network be more prone to delvelop more extremist groups? I mean if anyone can create an instance, then extremists from all the political spectrum will be able to moderate their own instances, in other words they will censor those who think differently and encourage their own views creating a loop that could potentially create more myopic-extremist views, or is there something I’m missing?
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  And won’t the proponents say this is a feature as it keeps them off other instances?
  - PakG1 8y ago
    And won't detractors say that this is how the mainstream media got the 2016 US presidential election predictions so wrong? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-...
    - phs318u 8y ago
      Then perhaps people/corporations will learn that farming social networks to predict IRL intentions may not be the best use of their time and energy. As far as I'm aware, "being an accurate source of voting intention" is not a prime requirement for social networks, nor is "making life easier for lazy journalists/pollsters". At least, not for any where the users are the customers. For those, where the users are the product, requirements might be different. Personally, I view this is a positive for Mastodon.
- fwn 8y ago
  Compared to the current mode of a few centralized services, a federated social networking landscape will be harder for companies or institutions to control and contain, yes. Depending on the world view that can be perceived as a bug or a feature.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
subdivisions 8y ago
The potential for division in the fediverse as a whole is worse. On twitter, there were McCarthyesque, opaquely curated user blacklists to worry about. A conglomerated instance could enforce this kind of arbitrary censorship across entire communities by imposing rules on who their federation partners can federate with, and control network disruption by refusing to federate with new, <100 user instances under the excuse of "preventing spam". Centralized social networks have already isolated people into information bubbles bad enough as it is.
- intothemild 8y ago
  The blocklists are equally as McCarthyesque.. I remember being on mastodon when the second wave of users hit (pawoo.net). Suddenly overnight we had to worry about what was on our servers cache.. suddenly there was lolicon porn, which might be legal in japan, but outside it could be illegal. So naturally blocklist's appeared, blocking all the new wave of Japanese servers. I remember there was a disagreement between those in favor of block list's and the creator of Mastodon. Who didn't want any form of blocking, back at that time the tools to do any form of blocking was either non-existent or very raw. I had an instance at this stage, and the thought about having some kind of childporn drawings in my servers cache scared the living shit out of me. Enough to shut it down. But the blocklists weren't vetted back then, and I don't think there was a central list that I can remember.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rainbowmverse 8y ago
    I think this is what led to instance muting. Now admins can mute an instance, but people can still opt in to following someone there, probably without caching.

colordrops 8y ago

"outrage machine". What a perfectly succinct description. That said, Mastodon would likely turn into an outrage machine if it ever reached critical mass. I suppose you could stay in your own mastodon instance to avoid it.

manigandham 8y ago

It's the people that bring the outrage, not the platform itself. Anything that reaches a certain scale will start to become it, it's part of human nature and something we haven't had sufficient time to learn and evolve past.

nafey 8y ago

I wonder if in the long run Mastodon will still not be an "outrage machine". Twitter also didn't start out as a vent for political outrage, but as a platform grows it gets more bad apples. In the case of Mastodon it's decentralized nature actually provides them more security. It will be interesting to see it play out.

merinowool 8y ago
It will be easier for governments to shut down small instances and smear the owners. I don't think decentralisation has much security value.
- phs318u 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole
  - manigandham 8y ago
    This always ignores the fact that several things like networks and server hosts are still fairly centralized. Unless everyone is running instances on their mobile phones using a giant global mesh, it is perfectly within the capabilities of modern nation states to shutdown these networks.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
Vinnl 8y ago
I have a feeling it already is one. In my timeline there are a lot of LGBQT activists (which I think is the case for much of Mastodon at the moment?), and since I generally agree with how they'd like to see the world and am otherwise not really involved with that movement, I don't really interact with those posts. However, I see a lot of "I simply blocked this hateful person lalalalalala" which makes me, as an outsider, feel uncomfortable, and I feel hesitant even to try to respond with even a slightly different view.
- apatters 8y ago
  If you look at the adoption pattern and growth rate of Mastodon, it has around 1.5M users, the majority of which have arrived via three big waves. The first wave was people with left wing identities who were tired of being harassed on mainstream platforms like Twitter. The second wave was Japanese lolicon enthusiasts (without diving too deep down this rabbit hole, lolicon is a popular but weird and nerdy thing to be into in Japan). The third wave was sex workers in response to SESTA/FOSTA eliminating platforms they used in the past. All these waves set up their own instances, and they don't communicate much with the other waves. If you look at what these waves all have in common (aside from using the software), there's just one thing. They were all posting stuff that didn't fit in on a mainstream platform. In the first case it was due to harassment, in the second it was embarrassment, in the third it was legality. The users are already bifurcating the network, admins routinely share blocklists of sites that they don't want included in their version of the fediverse. Being able to block instances and people you don't like is one of Mastodon's killer features. I don't think it will become the next outrage machine, people will just block and bifurcate. I do think users will keep setting up Mastodon instances in waves similar to the first three. I'd be surprised if Mastodon ever powered a better version of the commons we currently have on FB, Twitter etc. [1] The feature Mastodon added to federation (and that made it more popular than similar software) is the ability to not federate with people who are different from you. [1] The "fediverse" at large has some potential to do this if it receives mass adoption. Think of a scenario like WordPress integrating federation features into the Core. This would bring federation to the mainstream.
  - intothemild 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

elboru 8y ago

Wouldn’t a decentralized social network be more prone to delvelop more extremist groups? I mean if anyone can create an instance, then extremists from all the political spectrum will be able to moderate their own instances, in other words they will censor those who think differently and encourage their own views creating a loop that could potentially create more myopic-extremist views, or is there something I’m missing?

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
And won’t the proponents say this is a feature as it keeps them off other instances?
- PakG1 8y ago
  And won't detractors say that this is how the mainstream media got the 2016 US presidential election predictions so wrong? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-...
  - phs318u 8y ago
    Then perhaps people/corporations will learn that farming social networks to predict IRL intentions may not be the best use of their time and energy. As far as I'm aware, "being an accurate source of voting intention" is not a prime requirement for social networks, nor is "making life easier for lazy journalists/pollsters". At least, not for any where the users are the customers. For those, where the users are the product, requirements might be different. Personally, I view this is a positive for Mastodon.
fwn 8y ago
Compared to the current mode of a few centralized services, a federated social networking landscape will be harder for companies or institutions to control and contain, yes. Depending on the world view that can be perceived as a bug or a feature.
TeMPOraL 8y ago

subdivisions 8y ago

The potential for division in the fediverse as a whole is worse. On twitter, there were McCarthyesque, opaquely curated user blacklists to worry about. A conglomerated instance could enforce this kind of arbitrary censorship across entire communities by imposing rules on who their federation partners can federate with, and control network disruption by refusing to federate with new, <100 user instances under the excuse of "preventing spam". Centralized social networks have already isolated people into information bubbles bad enough as it is.

intothemild 8y ago
The blocklists are equally as McCarthyesque.. I remember being on mastodon when the second wave of users hit (pawoo.net). Suddenly overnight we had to worry about what was on our servers cache.. suddenly there was lolicon porn, which might be legal in japan, but outside it could be illegal. So naturally blocklist's appeared, blocking all the new wave of Japanese servers. I remember there was a disagreement between those in favor of block list's and the creator of Mastodon. Who didn't want any form of blocking, back at that time the tools to do any form of blocking was either non-existent or very raw. I had an instance at this stage, and the thought about having some kind of childporn drawings in my servers cache scared the living shit out of me. Enough to shut it down. But the blocklists weren't vetted back then, and I don't think there was a central list that I can remember.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rainbowmverse 8y ago
  I think this is what led to instance muting. Now admins can mute an instance, but people can still opt in to following someone there, probably without caching.