When users first log into Mastodon after fleeing Twitter, I can almost guarantee that this is one of their first thoughts. The “Social networking that’s not for sale” didn’t aim to be the detox drug for those seeking to ween themselves off the bird site, but despite its claims to be radically different, it offers the perfect replacement. Mastodon doesn’t work as well though, and that’s a good thing.
There’s just no getting around the fact that Mastodon looks and feels very much like Twitter. So much so that many people expect to be able to treat it the same and wonder why some features are missing. With the introduction of apps like Ivory, the excellent app from Tweetbot maker Tapbots that is still in alpha phase, this likeness becomes even more apparent. In fact, some users have only begun to use Mastodon because of these similarities. The ways in which it differs though is an important part of the service, and something that a lot of thought goes into.
One of the biggest sticking points is still onboarding and the need to choose a server to join. Granted, most people sign up for one of the largest instances mastodon.social, simply because it comes up top for a Google search of Mastodon. However, joining through the correct channels will mean making a choice, and this is introducing friction in order for the user to put in some thought. Which instance you join is actually important, you will get the most from Mastodon by joining like-minded people, although it is effortless to move.
Perhaps the best example of these intentional barriers is the inability to add a comment to boosting a post, the Mastodon version of a re-tweet. This is intentionally missing to avoid the usual use of dunking on someone, and also encourage interaction. It doesn’t take a lot to be able to achieve a similar result by copying a link to the post and sharing, but adds in just the right amount of friction to put you off. Hopefully allowing enough time for you to think twice about your action, and perhaps decide better of it.
By adding in intentional barriers to certain parts of the social media experience, Mastodon nurtures what it feels is a better experience overall. Decentralisation is a big part of this, but also with the way the service works. Encouraging interaction and conversation, along with a completely chronological timeline, makes Mastodon a fundamentally better place to be than attention economy driven social media. It might seem ‘worse’ but it’s better for you all round.
The original title to this post used the word agonising. It was a bit too strong, but perhaps displayed the annoyance and thought that I have put into not repeating the same social media mistakes. In its simplest form, I can’t decide what to do with my social media usage, and that means I’m doing everything just in case.
The issue all stems from Twitter. I can’t allow myself to get to a stage where I feel like I have to use a noisy service that’s bad for my brain. Mastodon used to be that place, but as the user base has ramped up more and more, I’m starting to feel like it will become just another Twitter. I’ve written about this before, only the day before deciding to go all in on micro.blog to help stem the noise.
This helped to start with. No boosts, no local and federated feed to lose myself in—bliss. However, all I did was follow everyone on Mastodon in a worse app. Without the filtering and muting available on Mastodon directly, I couldn’t bare to open the app. It ruined the one refuge away from the noise, so the solution was to go back. Unfortunately, two weeks on and several Elon decisions later means the user base has swelled even more and there’s now brands there!
I need a space that lets me interact with people but doesn’t burst my brain with a constant stream of ‘stuff’. Perhaps this place will never exit, or that I need to put some work into curating my feed. This was pointed out to me by Twitter users when I complained about similar issues there. I remained in the mindset that if I have to put loads of work in to make it right, it’s not the best place to start with.
I have hope that Mastodon calms down a bit, or that I can perhaps find an app that lets me filter things more granular. Turning off boosts perhaps or putting people into lists. Whatever the solution is, there is one thing for sure—I will keep fretting over it for no good reason.
Nathan Schneider for Norma mag:
Scalability explains a lot of what seems wrong with social media. Content moderation at scale needs to be semi-automated, which often means applying universal rules without context or nuance. And when abuse, harassment and misinformation drive engagement, the incentive is to address it in a way that doesn’t threaten business.
There have been many words written about how large scale social media doesn’t really have an incentive to get rid of hate. The reality is that if engagement is the measurement of income, then moderation decisions all of a sudden become much more complicated so as not to harm the bottom line. Nowhere more apt is the adage “if you’re not paying for the product…” become more appropriate than a social media platform that has harassment problems.
The fediverse opens new doors. It allows us the possibility to collectively own and more fully self-govern the online communities we participate in.
What is attractive, and also a little worrisome to those on gigantic instances, is the idea that in the fediverse you can self govern. You as a user have a choice to own the things you see online and the people you interact with. If you don’t like the way something goes, you can move your experience quickly and easily.
Just like on the rest of the internet, anyone, from violent extremists to people with uncommon hobbies, can use the available tools to create siloed spaces. The difference with the fediverse is that it facilitates a structure of relationships between communities.
I truly believe that as long as what you post online isn’t illegal, you should be allowed to do so. What Mastodon and the larger fediverse allowed users to do is to find a place where they can self express themselves, but also shield themselves from expression that they don’t want to see.
The idea that the fediverse is like your neighbourhood and your instance is your house works well here. If your neighbours do not behave in a way that you think is appropriate, you as an individual can choose to no longer allow interaction. Your neighbourhood also has the power to remove said house, or indeed the house can move to a neighbourhood that better fits its identity.
Currently, many servers appear to be run top-down by people who have the technical skills to set them up, but not necessarily with the social and economic capacity to foster and sustain community self-governance and address online harm.
I hope that enough people and communities build up the knowledge and funding to move into smaller instances where they can self govern. Currently, too many users fleeing Twitter are on large-scale servers controlled by individuals or small groups.
If the venture capital model were unleashed on the fediverse, the democratic potential of software like Mastodon would likely be lost.
My biggest worry, and what I fear is inevitable, is that someone like Google creates or purchases a multimillion user instance and starts wielding too much power. This would destroy everything that is good about the fediverse.
This crafty little ego keeps trying to work its way into my life. Today I am taking my son to Arsenal to watch a game, it’s his first time, so naturally he’ll want to take in the sites and take some photos. Unfortunately, my primary response is downloading Instagram ready to record some stories.
Photos and videos as memories are one thing, but my ego wants to show off on Instagram. I’m ready to thumb my nose at my followers. Look where we are, look what we’re doing, we’re having more fun than you!
Not all Stories shared are for this reason, but that is the reason I wanted to share mine. I might still do so, but in the right way because showing off is not like me at all. Sure I’m a photographer, but I try my hardest not to be an Instagram guy but if I’m not careful that pesky ego sneaks its way in again.
There are loads of services and apps in my life that I pay for. Perhaps too many, but if I value a service and use it a lot, I like to pay the developers something for their trouble. It feels unethical to use something and not contribute if you can, so I spend too much money on services. However, there’s something that flips in my brain once I start paying for something and I become much less tolerable to bugs.
Hey, bugs happen, and they happen lots in complex software. Although I am uncertain if there is some weird logic going on in my brain, but I just expect then when a service is free or very cheap. Unfortunately, the tide turns, and I tend to start asking questions and getting frustrated when signing up for a subscription and the bugs are still there.
I, rightly or wrongly, expect a service to keep on improving and getting better if it is supported by a subscription and tend to quit things quickly if they don’t start improving. I am not crazy for thinking this, right?