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

[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.

[bigolewannabe@hachyderm.io]

@taylorlorenz

I'd describe it as tradeoffs.

Would we use email the way we do if only Gmail people could email Gmail people? I think it wouldn't.

So email is better (not without issues like spam) because anybody can email anybody.

Mastodon/Fediverse provides similar benefits (and some problems) that "federated email" provide compared to siloed email.

I would argue the benefits outweigh the negatives.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@admin @taylorlorenz @dsc

on centralized #socialMedia, #moderation is just a cost center

why spend the money?

why squash #bigotry and #ignorance? it's a hassle

in fact, such accounts create drama, which drives eyeballs and clicks in outrage, thus increasing engagement, thus selling more ads

so they go "FrEe SpEeCh," a lying dodge

toxic as fuck. completely irresponsible

just another reason why corporate social media is and always will be rat poison and why everyone needs #mastodon

[aaa365a@ohai.social]

@taylorlorenz It’s a more authentic experience on here, they monitor bots and eradicate them, troll like replies trying to influence, steer your original post with a negative connotation just don’t happen. It’s less commercialised. A chair, chat and cup of tea, kinder experience.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@davew

have you seen our cat pictures?

no finer cat pictures

[aaa365a@ohai.social]

@luciedigitalni @NMBA @taylorlorenz Followers numbers aren’t as important here doesn’t matter and newbies are welcomed warmly by experts.

[sn@social.josko.org]

@taylorlorenz I own my social media feed and my community. It feels like a local pub with friends where I share rumours and stories. Not attention seeking circus club.

[philpetree@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz No corporate overlord mining your data and then using it to dictate what's in your feed.

[peachmcd@union.place]

@taylorlorenz

IMO the 'free speech' trope has been used to flood billionaires' platforms w hate speech & AI-generated deepfake porn that isn't tolerated on my Fediverse server

I'm here less for freedom TO spew whatever I want & more for freedom FROM algorithms, ads, & someone's profit motive determining what I see. I'm here for Solidarity & Movement Building & learning from people all over the world like @pluralistic & @popcornreel & @StillRise1967

Also for #CatsOfMastodon & #HashtagGames ‍️

[varpie@peculiar.florist]

@taylorlorenz Traditional social media is built to drive engagement and be addictive, making them a big part of Gen Z's social difficulties (they are literally being sued for it). Decentralized platforms without such algorithms bring back the feeling of community, providing a more tailored experience (choose your software, Mastodon, GoToSocial, Iceshrimp, etc.) without blocking connections. You can join a server based on your personal preferences (language, geolocation, hobbies...), and if you find a better place, you can freely move, without losing your connections.

[davep@infosec.exchange]

@haubles @taylorlorenz

*BOOSTS HARD FOR MAXIMUM CLOUT*

[meowthias@mastodon.world]

@taylorlorenz Because independent app developers can add features to decentralized social networking that vastly enhance the experience. Both the ability to follow hashtags and timed mutes are absolutely genius and are the reason I'm not on Bluesky. What new, totally kicksss things are going to be created for the Fediverse next week?

[timmy@goblin.camp]

@taylorlorenz I see a lot of good responses. One contextual element is who is asking, and I think there are good answers that fit more for organizations. You can build a media platform that no one can take away from you. If you share a link to your post, no one will see a login wall. If i were an org, news outlet, or something like a very socially engaged regional music collective, i think the robust control of your platform actually means something important.