I’ve been asked on TV hits and interviews lately to explain why decentralized social media is better, especially re: Mastodon.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@benroyce @taylorlorenz

Depending on the audience you could also mention the ants? Or don't it's fine.

[gbargoud@masto.nyc]

@taylorlorenz

A lot of people complained when Instagram first switched from a chronological feed to an algorithmic one.

But I think the way forward for the fediverse is communities moving here wholesale like the forkiverse server did.

I don't think people will make accounts here otherwise unless they're the kind of nerd who's interested in this (in which case selling it is easy) or they have network effects which take a long time to build up.

[ben@social.ben.ie]

@taylorlorenz as a platform it is not and can never be adversarial or extractive to you as a user, the way twitter, Facebook, instagram, TikTok and others are or will be.

[lyle@cville.online]

@taylorlorenz I like Jefferson’s phrasing: “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm” Technology that is not working actively to harm me and my loved ones is very appealing to me.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@futurebird @taylorlorenz

ANT PROPAGANDA IS RUINING THE FEDIVERSE

[aimeemaroux@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz I would mention the ridiculous censoring that is going on on YouTube right now and how centralised platforms will, eventually, be hostile towards themes that advertisers don't like, which is obviously adult content but also mental health, LGBTQ, and lots of other topics an advertiser doesn't want to be associated with. Instead of saying "unalived" to appease the platform, you can just say "murdered" on a decentralised platform that doesn't have to cater to advertisers.

[rk@mastodon.well.com]

@benroyce @futurebird @taylorlorenz

Propaganta

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@rk @futurebird @taylorlorenz

[weezmgk@mastodon.social]

@NMBA can you do that now? I have moved servers twice, each time, my followers disappeared. Although, I haven't had to do that terribly recently. YMMV. 🫲🫱 @taylorlorenz

[landelare@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@taylorlorenz The most important part for me is that this is not yet another "cloud app" where one entity controls everything: your account, what you see, the client applications, etc., but a protocol, where you can use whatever compatible software you want, even multiple.

It makes feature rollout difficult, but it's a massive safety feature in my opinion. If Mastodon gGmbH did something highly unpopular, all this software can feasibly choose to ignore it. They *cannot* force it on everyone.

[vfrmedia@social.tchncs.de]

@benroyce @rk @futurebird @taylorlorenz there's not only ants but literally every creature in the World (Fedi is particularly good for those interested in nature)

I've seen folk send pictures of lions etc that are sleeping in the main road (so everyone has to slow down and stop for them) as they live in countries where these are native, as well as just about every type of bug / snake / spider (folk do at least generally use CWs for those so others aren't scared if they have phobias), and nature scientists often post free links to whole full colour books of various creatures (I got one of all the snakes in Malaysia a few months back)

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@vfrmedia @rk @futurebird @taylorlorenz

you just hit upon *the* one, absolutely compelling selling point for mastodon:

"we have cat pictures"

boom, 1 million new sign ups

[dialektgefahr@friendica.opensocial.space]

@taylorlorenz Decentralised social networks such as Mastodon (and the Fediverse as a whole) are superior because they distribute power rather than concentrating it.
There is no single corporation dictating rules, algorithms or visibility. Instead, they consist of many independent servers (instances) that are connected to each other – similar to email.

Specifically, this means:
• More genuine freedom of expression:
On Mastodon, Friendica, Pixelfed or Akkoma, it is not a tech corporation with business interests that decides what is allowed or what remains "high-reach". Each instance sets its own rules, and users can switch or run their own – without losing their social network.
• No algorithmic manipulation:
Content is displayed chronologically, not according to advertising or engagement optimisation. This reduces polarisation, clickbait and artificial outrage.
• Control lies with the users:
Communities moderate themselves, transparently and comprehensibly. If rules become unfair, you simply go elsewhere – something that is practically impossible with centralised platforms.

There is no compulsion to monetise through tracking, advertising or profiling. This fundamentally changes whose interests are at the centre.

In short:
Centralised platforms "grant" freedom of expression as long as it is profitable or PR-compatible.
The Fediverse enables freedom of expression structurally – because no one can centrally revoke it.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@nikatjef

yes but there's a big difference between pesky reply guy bigots and ignorants, and a bigoted ignorant edgelord running the joint (elon and twitter)

[jackmexa4@mastodon.social]

@futurebird @benroyce @taylorlorenz

This is a commercial!

[ricci@discuss.systems]

@taylorlorenz On the old centralized platforms, everyone's in the same building with the same landlord, if the landlord is shitty (of course they are) everyone suffers. On decentralized media, there are tons of buildings with different landlords, and you can even build your own house. If your landlord sucks, you move.

[saskboy@mastodon.cc]

@taylorlorenz
Facebook has for years blocked links to my own blog, and now to news websites. Mastodon doesn't do that, and you can also keep your content, so Meta can't delete it all including your photos and friend connections.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@JackMexa4 @futurebird @taylorlorenz

i could totally see a "denizens of mastodon" campaign featuring prominent accounts

like, futurebird discussing some of her posts in the context of her ants

[admin@mastodon.slightlycyberpunk.com]

@benroyce @taylorlorenz @dsc I think there's another side to the lack of centralized moderation too -- it removes a lot of the "too big to fail" mentality, and in doing so actually allows more moderation.

We've got Twitter over here producing and distributing CSAM, and so many people and institutions *still* won't block or remove links to Twitter purely because of its size.

So you do get more freedom here, but at the same time you get stronger and more fair regulation. Regulation designed for your community instead of for global politics. For example, I follow accounts that post pornography, which would never be allowed on corporate socials. Yet it's all hidden behind appropriate CWs and such. Meanwhile back before I left Facebook I was getting random unsolicited hardcore porn just popping up in my feed a couple times a week! They'd remove it eventually, but not before it popped up full screen while I'm standing in line at the grocery store or something...

[fella@defcon.social]

@taylorlorenz
Yesterday I saw a comment about Wikipedia: thankfully it works in practice because it doesn't work in theory. I think this applies to Mastodon and everything else; when personal gains are removed from the equation, people generally care for other people.