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

[bjb@fosstodon.org]

@taylorlorenz @HenrikBruunDK

And the commercial ones can decide to charge you for access to your community.

[skotchygut@social.seattle.wa.us]

@taylorlorenz easy. I can explore whatever shows up on my feed without worrying about it showing up in my ad portfolio. It took time for this is sink in. My curiosity or lack of ability to understand what a link is before a click it no longer punishes me by assuming that I am now into whatever that was. It's like getting out of an abusive relationship when they question everything I do.

[dataangler@vis.social]

@taylorlorenz Nothing new really--just that we make the algorithm with boosting often and following widely. The effort I spend in getting into streams of content is worth the satisfaction of enriching multiple aspects of my life. Knowing that a billionaire cannot ensh*ttify this is also a big plus because the present-day game plan seems to be billionaire + media outlet = ashes.

[zymurgic@mastodon.online]

@taylorlorenz imagine picking and choosing what to read rather than having if rammed down your throat with 'suggested content ' that you can't avoid, where you are the algorithm.

[nikatjef@mastodon.acm.org]

@RowinSpeez
That last is actually not quite true... At least two servers that I was on did change their platform multiple times and even had adds.

But I was able to simply move to different servers without losing the content I wanted to see.

@taylorlorenz

[amarchio@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz decentralized = no single entity will control the entire network.
No oligarchy control, almost impossible to shutdown, hard to manipulate via algorithm tweaks or short: real people interact, not corporate puppets

[pre@boing.world]

@taylorlorenz No owners: Nobody owns the network, it can't be bought or sold, there is no oligarch deciding who can have accounts or what they can say or selling the data or putting their thumb on the scales of some algorithm.

The network is owned in common by us all.

[pattykimura@beige.party]

@taylorlorenz We're like a global NPR : each instance (thousands. of all sizes) is its own local radio station producing or relaying all kinds of content (local, national, global content), with free access to any other station's content through a voluntary federation. No ads, no corporations, no skeezy Nazi screwing with your feed to force a disruptive fascist content down your throat when you just want to tune into the ant station or climate change or German elections or jokes or cats or get live updates on the ground from Minneapolis. We exist beholden to no one man or corporation. And there's still a refreshing earnestness here. The meanness of X is not our vibe.

[quantium40@sueden.social]

@taylorlorenz Use simple examples:

What if an instance admin dislikes you?
-> Fediverse: Get banned from one instance; change instance; reconnect to your friends.
-> X: Get banned from X; be lost.

What if the owner of a server wants to spread their world view or influence elections?
-> Instagram: Algorithm changed; Propaganda gets boosted; noone sees other opinions
-> Mastodon: People curate their timelines and decide what they see

[samueljohnson@mstdn.social]

@taylorlorenz WRT freedom of expression: Government of the people by the people for the people, not government of the people by oligarchs for oligarchs.

Mastodon is only part of the Fediverse in the same way Gmail is part of email, not the totality of it. Alternatives exist: Tusky, Megalodon, Phanphy etc.

[doctorwu2357@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz It allows users in countries with heavy censorship/oppression to network with people outside their country and to discuss topics freely by allowing Tor users to access the network, which is unlike X or Bluesky

[rocketsoup@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz
- Top of my list: it's not profit driven. That changes the entire incentive structure of everything.
- It's my data and I can move it elsewhere freely if I don't like my server.
- No algorithm burying my voice.
- It generally just self-selects a different userbase. Less performativity, less clout chasing, less drama. We aren't sexy or popular, and that attracts different kinds of folks.
- If I don't like how it works, I can (and have!) changed how it works.

[aburtch@shakedown.social]

@taylorlorenz Maybe frame it as similar to solar power?

Imagine a community solar grid as the Fediverse. So if the electric grid (corporate social media) goes down or gets enshitttifed by Nazis, you are protected from that since your instance runs on community grid without an owner and the rules are set by that community, so you can kick out bad actors.

Also, similar to social media, the solar communities can be connected together and share energy (information) and if one community goes down or turns bad (becomes a nazi bar) you can disconnect it easily and preserve your community.

Just thinking out loud…

[macf00bar@hachyderm.io]

@taylorlorenz
The strongest pitch isn't "more free speech." It's "you get to choose who sets the rules." That's the real difference.

On Twitter, one guy decides what flies. On Mastodon, you pick your community or run your own server. Don't like the moderation? Move to another instance and keep your connections. Nobody pulls the rug out from under you.

The email analogy works best on TV: imagine if email only worked on Gmail and Google could nuke your account tomorrow with no appeal. That's centralized social media. The fediverse works like email already does. Pick any provider, talk to everyone. People live with a successful federated system every day without thinking about it.

No algorithm deciding what you see to maximize engagement. No ad machine that needs you angry to make money. Your feed is chronological, your data stays yours.

Honest caveat though: the "free expression" angle can backfire. Each instance has its own rules, and instances can cut each other off. Some corners of the fediverse are stricter than Twitter ever was. The difference is those rules are community-chosen, not handed down by a trust & safety team optimizing for advertiser comfort. That distinction matters, but it's not "anything goes" and pretending otherwise loses credibility fast.

If I had 30 seconds on TV I'd say: "The internet was designed so nobody owns it. Social media broke that promise. The fediverse fixes it. Pick your server like you pick your email provider, talk to the whole network, and if you don't like the house rules, you move. You don't lose everything."

[lostgen@det.social]

@taylorlorenz
Your choice and control. Nobody is trying to manipulate you or make you buy something. You can just hang out with the others.

[waitingonabus@urbanists.social]

@taylorlorenz someone with a profit motive is not incentivized to hijack your brain. I engage with things on Mastodon/fediverse in a much more controlled, healthier, self-driven way than I ever did on Twitter, Instagram, etc.

[eons@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@taylorlorenz well, I think that isn't about the quality of the free speech (there are tons of instanced banned from main federation networks) but the difficulty to apply censorship, of course, instance admins are individually more vulnerable by State or corporate pressure than the owner of csam dot com/x , but there are too many of them making it more resilient

[rasterweb@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz Real quick off the top of my head I usually say the Fediverse is not controlled by Billionaires, can't be bought/sold or controlled, isn't filled with ads, doesn't track you or try to sell your information, isn't filled with Nazis (they are on their own servers and I never see them because they are blocked) and there's not an algorithm trying to feed me crap I don't want to see.

[normjess@tech.lgbt]

@taylorlorenz
WOULD YOU RATHER:

one centralized server run by a big tech company (eg. Meta)

minimal moderation in order to get as many people connected as possible, to monetize them $$$

minorities are collateral damage, constantly attacked and cast out entirely

OR:

millions of servers, self funded or running on user donations

millions of different forms of moderation

highly moderated spaces where trans people are respected OR users are ejected

AND unmoderated spaces for awful people

and most importantly, the ability to very easily move your account between all these spaces, to start over as a nasty or nice person

[sitcom_nemesis@tech.lgbt]

@taylorlorenz

In https://theweeklymiscellaneous.co.uk/posts/2025/10/an-autistic-persons-guide-to-mastodon/ I end up describing it as:

Mastodon distributes power. No one admin has control over the whole network, and while an admin temper-tantrum can disrupt the network, it cannot engulf it in the way that it can engulf Twitter or Bluesky. Instead, it is entirely possible to avoid the tantruming admin while still being on Mastodon.

This changes the incentives involved. Mastodon is easier to run out of a furry’s basement, so there is no incentive to raise huge amounts of venture capital money (and be beholden to what venture capitalists want). If anyone wants to enshittify their Mastodon server, users will pack up and move servers - this makes Mastodon incredibly resistant to enshittification. Since advertising is a form of enshittification, this means Mastodon is entirely ad-free - and by extension, it is surveillance-capitalism-free, because why do all that spying if you can’t have ads?

(1/2)