Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription by going to https://ground.news/tldr We've talked a lot about European strategic au...
Isn’t it interesting that all the arguments against it boil down to two main things:
Network effect: The established platforms already have so many users that alternative platforms don’t stand a chance.
Lack of technical expertise: The established providers are more advanced technically, there is a lack of investment, no comparable start-up culture in the EU, etc.
I think both are self-fulfilling prophecies:
The network effect is at least to a certain extend maintained, for example, by the fact that even government institutions do not leave the established platforms (even though Twitter, for example, is no longer an open platform, which makes it completely unsuitable for public announcements).
There is a lack of investment in technology because the EU does not invest in this sector on a proper scale, but instead makes itself dependent on established providers. In addition, due to the monopoly position of the established providers, which is imo made possible by inadmissible antitrust regulation, there simply can’t be competition from small startups.
I therefore believe that it all boils down to one central point: it is supposedly too late to change anything, so we should just accept the situation.
I find this unacceptable, as it is precisely the lack of will to change that has created this situation in the first place.
I mean, Bytedance was only founded in 2012 (TikTok in 2016) and faced exactly the same challenges. However, China still provided massive funding and support for the company, even though Meta, then still Facebook, was founded in 2004 and thus had a head start of almost 10 years. I simply don’t believe that it was just the short video format that made TikTok so successful – it also received massive (state) funding to promote the platform. If China had not done that, they would not have one of the most successful social media platforms worldwide by now.
It is also assumed that social media can only function in the form of centralized platforms. I think this is also wrong, because the platform economy is not a law of nature on the internet. Rather, it is only since around 2000 that the internet has developed from a distributed information medium into a largely centralized medium through unregulated, neoliberal capitalism — with the consequences we are all now feeling.
I therefore believe that it would be entirely possible to establish EU platforms or at least to promote the ones already existing more effectively.
I think it would be worth a try, especially since established social media platforms clearly pose a significant threat to democracies, as demonstrated by the global rise of fascism (which, imo, is largely attributable to misinformation on social media).
However, this would require renouncing the principles of overarching capitalism to some extend – and I think that this is the real reason why such approaches are not being pursued: Many EU politicians if not most are convinced neoliberals, which is why they refuse to acknowledge the devastating consequences of this concept and instead prefer to maintain the status quo, thereby making the established, centralized players more and more powerful.
What is sad is that if every governmental administration was switching to fediverse and especially stopped to use x/twitter it would create a move to mastodon.
I think people would start to follow and it would make it more plausible that one day fediverse would be the main networks used. More so if governments were supporting development in any way.
It’s not Mastodon, it’s never going to be Mastodon.
Several key design issues prevent that from happening. It’s just not built for that purpose. For one thing, a chrono-only firehose is a TERRIBLE fit for governmental notifications.
Also, nobody flocks to a social network for official admin accounts. That’s just not a thing.
Bluesky maybe, but people around these parts absolutely refuse to acknowledge why that is or any differences between BS and other social media, so this conversation will likely remain inside the weird Fedi echo chamber that missed that this debate is now over for everybody else.
I also think that Mastodon is not ideal for many people due to some fundamental design decisions and the lack of monetization possibilities, which I believe are necessary to enable content creators to earn a living (many operate as small, indipendet businesses).
Nevertheless, Twitter continues to be used — and this platform is no longer even fully publicly accessible since Musk’s takeover (since July 2023, most content can only be viewed with a user profile). As a result, you can only reach Twitter users and no longer the general public. This seems to me to be a very significant design flaw if you actually want to reach the general public.
I don’t know about monetization being the challenge. Most people creating Twitter content are not doing so to monetize it on Twitter.
It think the semi-deliberate inability to ride an alogrithm to any sort of sustained virality and the terrible moderation tools make Mastodon a very bad fit for anybody expecting a big following and to use it as an outreach or promotional tool. And yeah, those are fundamental design choices that make Masto a bad fit for public institutions, celebrities and brands.
Which, hey, that’s fine if that’s the thing you want to make. It’s just weird to then spend so much effort in trying to grassroots promote a thing not made for the thing you’re pushing.
I completely agree with you about Mastodon. I’m also not at all convinced that it’s a suitable replacement for Twitter for the masses.
When it comes to monetization, I just meant that I think it’s necessary for any Fediverse application if the Fediverse ever wants to have any chance of somewhat competing with mainstream platforms. After all, earning potential is, imo, the basis for professionally created content.
Not that the Fediverse necessarily needs all of that, but it does if you want to reach the masses, because they demand content in a quantity that simply cannot be provided free of charge (on mainstream social media it is paid for via ads).
Isn’t it interesting that all the arguments against it boil down to two main things:
Network effect: The established platforms already have so many users that alternative platforms don’t stand a chance.
Lack of technical expertise: The established providers are more advanced technically, there is a lack of investment, no comparable start-up culture in the EU, etc.
I think both are self-fulfilling prophecies:
The network effect is at least to a certain extend maintained, for example, by the fact that even government institutions do not leave the established platforms (even though Twitter, for example, is no longer an open platform, which makes it completely unsuitable for public announcements).
There is a lack of investment in technology because the EU does not invest in this sector on a proper scale, but instead makes itself dependent on established providers. In addition, due to the monopoly position of the established providers, which is imo made possible by inadmissible antitrust regulation, there simply can’t be competition from small startups.
I therefore believe that it all boils down to one central point: it is supposedly too late to change anything, so we should just accept the situation.
I find this unacceptable, as it is precisely the lack of will to change that has created this situation in the first place.
I mean, Bytedance was only founded in 2012 (TikTok in 2016) and faced exactly the same challenges. However, China still provided massive funding and support for the company, even though Meta, then still Facebook, was founded in 2004 and thus had a head start of almost 10 years. I simply don’t believe that it was just the short video format that made TikTok so successful – it also received massive (state) funding to promote the platform. If China had not done that, they would not have one of the most successful social media platforms worldwide by now.
It is also assumed that social media can only function in the form of centralized platforms. I think this is also wrong, because the platform economy is not a law of nature on the internet. Rather, it is only since around 2000 that the internet has developed from a distributed information medium into a largely centralized medium through unregulated, neoliberal capitalism — with the consequences we are all now feeling.
I therefore believe that it would be entirely possible to establish EU platforms or at least to promote the ones already existing more effectively.
I think it would be worth a try, especially since established social media platforms clearly pose a significant threat to democracies, as demonstrated by the global rise of fascism (which, imo, is largely attributable to misinformation on social media).
However, this would require renouncing the principles of overarching capitalism to some extend – and I think that this is the real reason why such approaches are not being pursued: Many EU politicians if not most are convinced neoliberals, which is why they refuse to acknowledge the devastating consequences of this concept and instead prefer to maintain the status quo, thereby making the established, centralized players more and more powerful.
What is sad is that if every governmental administration was switching to fediverse and especially stopped to use x/twitter it would create a move to mastodon.
I think people would start to follow and it would make it more plausible that one day fediverse would be the main networks used. More so if governments were supporting development in any way.
It’s not Mastodon, it’s never going to be Mastodon.
Several key design issues prevent that from happening. It’s just not built for that purpose. For one thing, a chrono-only firehose is a TERRIBLE fit for governmental notifications.
Also, nobody flocks to a social network for official admin accounts. That’s just not a thing.
Bluesky maybe, but people around these parts absolutely refuse to acknowledge why that is or any differences between BS and other social media, so this conversation will likely remain inside the weird Fedi echo chamber that missed that this debate is now over for everybody else.
I also think that Mastodon is not ideal for many people due to some fundamental design decisions and the lack of monetization possibilities, which I believe are necessary to enable content creators to earn a living (many operate as small, indipendet businesses).
Nevertheless, Twitter continues to be used — and this platform is no longer even fully publicly accessible since Musk’s takeover (since July 2023, most content can only be viewed with a user profile). As a result, you can only reach Twitter users and no longer the general public. This seems to me to be a very significant design flaw if you actually want to reach the general public.
I don’t know about monetization being the challenge. Most people creating Twitter content are not doing so to monetize it on Twitter.
It think the semi-deliberate inability to ride an alogrithm to any sort of sustained virality and the terrible moderation tools make Mastodon a very bad fit for anybody expecting a big following and to use it as an outreach or promotional tool. And yeah, those are fundamental design choices that make Masto a bad fit for public institutions, celebrities and brands.
Which, hey, that’s fine if that’s the thing you want to make. It’s just weird to then spend so much effort in trying to grassroots promote a thing not made for the thing you’re pushing.
I completely agree with you about Mastodon. I’m also not at all convinced that it’s a suitable replacement for Twitter for the masses.
When it comes to monetization, I just meant that I think it’s necessary for any Fediverse application if the Fediverse ever wants to have any chance of somewhat competing with mainstream platforms. After all, earning potential is, imo, the basis for professionally created content.
Not that the Fediverse necessarily needs all of that, but it does if you want to reach the masses, because they demand content in a quantity that simply cannot be provided free of charge (on mainstream social media it is paid for via ads).