https://twitter.com/skrabkanamrkve/status/1518874583922843648

OK, so the question is... What does Mastodon do better than Twitter, as many people are considering leaving Twitter for an alternate platform. TL;DR: A few things, but it doesn't solve the big problems caused by large companies holding a platform (1/14)

It has a few advantages. Federated internet services basically take the problem of a massive platform being difficult to moderate and split it up. Each node becomes an interest group of some kind akin to the old bulletin boards, and each node handles its own moderation (2/14)

The intended effect of this is basically if a node fails to moderate its users in a specific way, the administrators of other nodes can choose to block content from that node. As well, individual users can block other individuals and instances. (3/14)

Another thing that's usually boasted by Federated internet is the ability to control your data. Who can see your posts and who can use the data from your posts. This is partially true, it gets complicated if, ex: you try to delete a post and another instance follows you. (4/14)

They have a copy of it now. If another node does not accept the Delete request made by your node, it just exists forever now. This is because Mastodon is just one server architecture that uses the ActivityPub standard that's fairly common in FediNet applications. (5/14)

So the advantages of this structure are essentially that ActivityPub, the standard that Mastodon is built on, is more like... PHPBB rather than a central service. It's a standardized protocol for accepting posts and sending posts between instances of this server. (6/14)

This has a few interesting effects. Mastodon itself is not algorithm-driven. You follow a feed, and you see its posts in chronological order. That means you need to *look* for posts or people to follow. You can search a Tag and find people that you like posting there. (7/14)

This basically means it's harder to find new things to follow. But it also means you asked to see whatever shows up on your feed. This means that Mastodon is a TERRIBLE place if you want general audiences to see something, but a GREAT place to grow shared interests. (8/14)

Most disadvantages of ActivityPub have to do with the downsides to its advantages: Having more control over moderation tools is a double-edged sword, it can lead to instances becoming echo chambers as they block and push out other views... (9/14)

But if that's what you want, then you can join an instance that agrees with you rather than having a single set of rules governing the entire platform. Being able to make your own instance is a benefit, but it means you need to put up your own resources to run and mod it. (10/14)

It's worth noting Trump's Truth Social is a fork of Mastodon. That's not to knock Mastodon, just demonstrating that Mastodon is more like a pre-packaged way of using the ActivityPub standard than how we normally think of a platform. (11/14)

I don't think Mastodon is necessarily the answer, though. It's useful right now simply because it isn't mainstream. As soon as it actually takes off, you'll likely get larger instances that offer things like content hosting, but... In return for access to your data. (12/14)

Once that threshold is breached, we'll probably still have some of the advantages of Federation, but you'll end up with the larger services becoming walled gardens like Truth Social is. Or only associating with 'trusted' instances that happen to also do the same. (13/14)

Mastodon and ActivityPub aren't solutions to the problem of Twitter. The problems of Twitter can be recreated using this architecture. They just give you the chance to say 'no' if you're willing to downgrade your experience in return for some control. (14/14)

You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: https://typefully.com/sonic232/43YvPN7

What does Mastodon do better than Twitter? More than you know, less than you think

It has a few advantages. 

Federated internet services basically take the problem of a massive platform being difficult to moderate and split it up. Each node becomes an interest group of some kind akin to the old bulletin boards, and each node handles its own moderation (1/13)

The intended effect of this is basically if a node fails to moderate its users in a specific way, the administrators of other nodes can choose to block content from that node. As well, individual users can block other individuals and instances. (2/13)

Another thing that's usually boasted by Federated internet is the ability to control your data. Who can see your posts and who can use the data from your posts. This is partially true, it gets complicated if, ex: you try to delete a post and another instance follows you. (3/13)

They have a copy of it now. If another node does not accept the Delete request made by your node, it just exists forever now. This is because Mastodon is just one server architecture that uses the ActivityPub standard that's fairly common in FediNet applications. (4/13)

So the advantages of this structure are essentially that ActivityPub, the standard that Mastodon is built on, is more like... PHPBB rather than a central service. It's a standardized protocol for accepting posts and sending posts between instances of this server. (5/13)

This has a few interesting effects. Mastodon itself is not algorithm-driven. You follow a feed, and you see its posts in chronological order. That means you need to *look* for posts or people to follow. You can search a Tag and find people that you like posting there. (6/13)

This basically means it's harder to find new things to follow. But it also means you asked to see whatever shows up on your feed. This means that Mastodon is a TERRIBLE place if you want general audiences to see something, but a GREAT place to grow shared interests. (7/13)

Most disadvantages of ActivityPub have to do with the downsides to its advantages:
Having more control over moderation tools is a double-edged sword, it can lead to instances becoming echo chambers as they block and push out other views... (8/13)

But if that's what you want, then you can join an instance that agrees with you rather than having a single set of rules governing the entire platform.

Being able to make your own instance is a benefit, but it means you need to put up your own resources to run and mod it. (9/13)

It's worth noting Trump's Truth Social is a fork of Mastodon. 

That's not to knock Mastodon, just demonstrating that Mastodon is more like a pre-packaged way of using the ActivityPub standard than how we normally think of a platform. (10/13)

I don't think Mastodon is necessarily the answer, though. It's useful right now simply because it isn't mainstream. As soon as it actually takes off, you'll likely get larger instances that offer things unlimited content hosting, but... In return for access to your data. (11/13)

Once that threshold is breached, we'll probably still have some of the advantages of Federation, but you'll end up with the larger services becoming walled gardens like Truth Social is. Or only associating with 'trusted' instances that happen to also do the same. (12/13)

Mastodon and ActivityPub aren't solutions to the problem of Twitter. Many of the problems of Twitter can be recreated using this architecture. They just give you the chance to say 'no' if you're willing to downgrade your experience in return for some control. (13/13)

You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: https://typefully.com/sonic232/32xXudI