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

[adarsh@ruby.social]

@taylorlorenz No ads. That’s it.

[jeffreysmith@mastdn.social]

@taylorlorenz

Your trust in posing the question to us makes the case: on the fediverse one may crowdsource knowledge without a commercially focused algorithm polluting the interaction with wasteful content.

[atomicpoet@atomicpoet.org]

@futurebird @diraquel @taylorlorenz I also like how the Fediverse forces you to see things you wouldn’t otherwise encounter because you previously didn’t have any interest in it.

That said, it would be nice to find more people with similar interests.

[kung_fu_emu@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz Think writing and books. Humans have had writing for millennia, books for centuries. But it was the printing press that democratized the written word. The pamphlet and broadside replaced the tome and codices. With the passing of the monastic requirement of manual copy, suddenly the voices recorded were not solely those at the pinnacle of power. Decentralized, in a very important way, means all of us.

[Guest]

@taylorlorenz
Social media with:
No ads
No algorithm
No oligarchs

[contrasocial@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz

I usually lead with the concept that the infrastructure of the fediverse is controlled by its community, not a corporation.

The critical part is understanding that the constellation of servers where all this is hosted is owned (or atleast paid for and administrated by) people and not profit-seeking corporations.

[gnomon@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz fediverse platforms are like a table at the local weekend market: anyone can set one up, dirt cheap, little to no infrastructure, small audience, supported by other folks doing the same thing. Perfect place to sell your watercolours or canvas for support for adding speedbumps on that residential road that Uber has been directing drivers to take at 60km/h.

It's not Wal-Mart, it never will be, it doesn't want to be. It's different, and for a bunch of folks it's a lot better.

[ireneista@adhd.irenes.space]

@taylorlorenz there's less censorship because content policies and their enforcement are made by your peers, not by corporations whose primary goal is profit and who are strongly incentivized to silence dissent of all kinds

[ireneista@adhd.irenes.space]

@taylorlorenz every marginalized group has its own social norms which do not fully agree with anyone else's. corporate venues force everyone to be homogenous, so nobody gets to express themselves, which can become a serious problem when the topics being discussed pertain to major injustices.

[mahadevank@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz i have a take with respect to police work and surveillance. With decentralized networks, digital surveillance becomes unnecessary and criminal circles can be tracked in the traditional way, by infiltrating their Mastodon servers.

Finding criminal networks in a large centralized network requires scanning every single message and networks s can't be found so easily because the volume of random interactions and noise.

[lottajg@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz if nothing else its a blissful respite from the corporate and advertising hellscape that predominates the majority of the internet.

[amblergee@indieweb.social]

@taylorlorenz no black box algorithm predicting / influencing / controlling the information I see !

[catriona@tech.lgbt]

@taylorlorenz Local moderation is engaged moderation. On Twitter (even pre-Musk) and other centralised platforms, moderation is impossible (or at least not cost-effective) to scale, so you get arbitrary decisions and systems that are very easy to abuse.

I got suspended from Twitter more than once for "hate speech" when in fact I was objecting to hate speech, while none of my reports for hate speech ever went anywhere. Here, not only can I much more easily find an instance with moderators I trust, but if they lost my trust I would simply move to a different instance.

[rimu@mastodon.nzoss.nz]

@taylorlorenz Because billionaires are sociopaths and cannot be trusted.

Keep it simple.

[dannotdaniel@hellions.cloud]

@taylorlorenz I really struggled to boil this down in a quote toot but I'll try for a simpler answer here: it's ELON proof

^{and custom emojis}

[healyn@normal.style]

@taylorlorenz it feels smaller, in a good way. Less performative, easier to choose the people with whom you interact. Larger platforms naturally become hierarchical, this place is more of a community as long as you're not trying to speak *at* people (my experience, anyway)

[ramshackle@rwn.lol]

@taylorlorenz@mastodon.social cannot be bought by musk, Ellison or any other oligarchs

[pttp@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz It's like the FOSS (Free & Open Source Software) of social media.
Put in Audre Lorde's terms, it's not--like all the "mainstream" platforms are--"the master's tools."

[mattedgar@social.coop]

@taylorlorenz "It's a lot of fun, I make a regular donation to my instance host, and nobody's algorithm messes with my timeline"

[finestructure@mastodon.social]

@taylorlorenz Imagine your social media posts are little articles in a newspaper. The newspaper decides what articles to promote and makes money off the ads around them. A person like Musk or Bezos can buy the newspaper and shape it to their liking.

Or imagine everyone had their own printing press and can publish their own papers, without any ad-based promotion. You’re free to move anywhere with your printing press and your subscribers are yours, and you can reach them wherever you set it up.