> They all still post. That's objectively false. Traffic has gone down to the point that they dropped about 10 spots in list of most visited/accessed websites.

> They all still post. That's objectively false. Traffic has gone down to the point that they dropped about 10 spots in list of most visited/accessed websites. > the onus is on you to convince me why it's an improved experience. On open networks, I have: - No ads. - No data tracking. - No algorithm that promotes content that I do not want to see (fine, Twitter "solved" this by separating the followers from "for you" tabs). - assurance that I won't be treated as a second class citizen unless I pay for a "blue check" > There's the question of "which mark Cuban" This is one of the criticisms that have no root in practical reality. Basically everyone that's left Twitter for Mastodon has written a post saying "here's my new handle". And has any high-profile figure started a conversation with anyone via social media, without any form of previous introduction or method to check their claims? > you think the NBA doesn't want to get eyeballs from people who are interested in NFL? Why do you think that wouldn't be possible in a federated/distributed network? Individuals will pull the content to their feeds according to their interests and propagate further to their network. The content might be originated in separate central points, but they end up diffused through the network just the same. > The fact that the apps are worse and the content discovery mechanisms aren't implemented. This is circumstantial, not fundamental.