Mastodon* is in desperate need of a rebrand and a repositioning in the minds of the general public (imo).
-
When Threads launched, Zuckerberg's strategy was to determine which aspect of Mastodon were the most appealing, then he positioned Threads to be that until he didn't need to anymore.
Threads pretended to be a community-driven, decentralized platform with a techie vibe in hopes of stopping the flood of users leaving Twitter for Mastodon.
When he accomplished that, he changed threads dot net to threads dot com, and it's on to the next one.
What Mark Zuckerberg saw in Mastodon and what he tried to replicate is what makes Mastodon special.
Zuck tried to replicate the feeling of community you get on Mastodon. Some Fediverse leaders sold us out, and tried to help Zuck, which is upsetting to me and a topic of a different discussion. Anyway,
Zuck saw community as Mastodon's most valuable attribute. And I think there's value in his observation.
-
What Mark Zuckerberg saw in Mastodon and what he tried to replicate is what makes Mastodon special.
Zuck tried to replicate the feeling of community you get on Mastodon. Some Fediverse leaders sold us out, and tried to help Zuck, which is upsetting to me and a topic of a different discussion. Anyway,
Zuck saw community as Mastodon's most valuable attribute. And I think there's value in his observation.
I want to talk a little about the Communities and Markets dichotomy because I believe it to be a more effective communication strategy than decentralized vs centralized.
So I want to share some thoughts I wrote a couple years back. And why I believe Mastodon is or can be positioned as a community, and why other platforms are markets.
It's been a challenge for me to articulate this idea. So I've been writing here and there. Here's my first toot that attempts to explain
-
I want to talk a little about the Communities and Markets dichotomy because I believe it to be a more effective communication strategy than decentralized vs centralized.
So I want to share some thoughts I wrote a couple years back. And why I believe Mastodon is or can be positioned as a community, and why other platforms are markets.
It's been a challenge for me to articulate this idea. So I've been writing here and there. Here's my first toot that attempts to explain
Again, It's important to note that this, whatever this is (lol), is not a debate whether or not Bluesky is decentralized, or if Threads is part of the Fediverse.
This is an outright rejection of the decentralized vs centralized, and Protocols Not Platforms dichotomies as a way to improve the www and undo the harms of the "platform era."
This is an exploration of what I've been calling Communities Not Markets.
-
Again, It's important to note that this, whatever this is (lol), is not a debate whether or not Bluesky is decentralized, or if Threads is part of the Fediverse.
This is an outright rejection of the decentralized vs centralized, and Protocols Not Platforms dichotomies as a way to improve the www and undo the harms of the "platform era."
This is an exploration of what I've been calling Communities Not Markets.
That said, if you are interested in a deep dive into the concepts of decentralization and whether or not Bluesky meets its definition, Christine Lemmer-Webber has two fantastic and compelling essays on the subject.
Not to out myself as a nerd but I've read both twice and they're really good, imo.
-
That said, if you are interested in a deep dive into the concepts of decentralization and whether or not Bluesky meets its definition, Christine Lemmer-Webber has two fantastic and compelling essays on the subject.
Not to out myself as a nerd but I've read both twice and they're really good, imo.
Let's talk markets.
A markets is a vessel for extracting value for a small syndicate of beneficiaries (ie venture capitalists). How a company brands their tech stack is less relevant. If an extractive force exists, it's a market.
You can simply call it "ad-tech" and you'd be correct. But that term lacks all the fun analogies of spaces where people dwell.
-
Let's talk markets.
A markets is a vessel for extracting value for a small syndicate of beneficiaries (ie venture capitalists). How a company brands their tech stack is less relevant. If an extractive force exists, it's a market.
You can simply call it "ad-tech" and you'd be correct. But that term lacks all the fun analogies of spaces where people dwell.
Unrelated: it's a tragedy that William H. Macy wasn't the father in The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (2000)
-
Unrelated: it's a tragedy that William H. Macy wasn't the father in The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (2000)
Since markets need value to extract, they need a governing system to ensure that the right kinds of content is discovered.
This is the algorithm's role. Algorithms are the invisible hands of the market.
Algorithms influence the way people create content and frames social media as a way to make money. Every post is a sales pitch. Attention is currency. These platforms are quite literally open air markets, not communities.
-
Since markets need value to extract, they need a governing system to ensure that the right kinds of content is discovered.
This is the algorithm's role. Algorithms are the invisible hands of the market.
Algorithms influence the way people create content and frames social media as a way to make money. Every post is a sales pitch. Attention is currency. These platforms are quite literally open air markets, not communities.
The problem with the world wide web is there are far too many markets, and far too few communities. Markets have monopolized our time and have turned our attention into wealthy empires. It's not because platforms were built on the wrong protocol.
We don't beat the techno-oligarchs with a decentralized system. The World Wide Web *is a decentralized system*.
We beat them by building more communities (and rebranding the ones we have that work).
More tomorrow(?)
-
The problem with the world wide web is there are far too many markets, and far too few communities. Markets have monopolized our time and have turned our attention into wealthy empires. It's not because platforms were built on the wrong protocol.
We don't beat the techno-oligarchs with a decentralized system. The World Wide Web *is a decentralized system*.
We beat them by building more communities (and rebranding the ones we have that work).
More tomorrow(?)
I'm going to keep this thread going if you don't mind. I'll use #CnM for Communities, Not Markets, so you can follow or mute.
The reason I've sat on CnM for so long (2+ years) is because it feels so enormous in scope. I can write for an entire Saturday and still not feel like I've "finished." You know the feeling lol.
But writing this thread is helping. Maybe in the end I'll have something coherent to publish to my blog www.fromjason.xyz
-
I'm going to keep this thread going if you don't mind. I'll use #CnM for Communities, Not Markets, so you can follow or mute.
The reason I've sat on CnM for so long (2+ years) is because it feels so enormous in scope. I can write for an entire Saturday and still not feel like I've "finished." You know the feeling lol.
But writing this thread is helping. Maybe in the end I'll have something coherent to publish to my blog www.fromjason.xyz
Mastodon is a community, and it's not due to its decentralized architecture.
Place Mastodon among its peers. What's the difference? It's member behavior.
Mastodon is free from the influence of governing algorithms.
On Mastodon, incentives for posting are intrinsic. There's no system to game, no master to please. Which means, no grindset gurus, no crypto bros. Just real people.
Surely, there are other considerations for building a community. But it starts with a rejection of the market. #CnM
-
J jeppe@uddannelse.social shared this topic
