Thread by @TheChrisWinters

So, in re: #RIPTwitter, read this important thread I posted here, then come back here, because I have a question (this will be a long 🧵 if you read all the embedded threads).
Focusing on Twitter as town square:

https://twitter.com/tzimmer_history/status/1593636623211630593

Here's another one, on Twitter as an emergency management too:

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1592347386684506113

Finally, here's my late-night end-of-Twitter screed — less essential here, but I'm focused on tech fake-it-til-you-make-it culture.

https://twitter.com/TheChrisWinters/status/1593423172803887105

Here's a story in @thenation I think is essential to understanding how Twitter is used and viewed in the Global South.
thenation.com/article/world/…

Here's my question: If we were to create a social media platform from scratch that does everything Twitter does well, and doesn't do anything Twitter does poorly, what would it look like. I think we'd have to start distilling what works here.

1. Global town square: You never know who you'll meet here, whether they're in a SF tech office or on the battlefields of Ukraine. You can filter what you see (hashtags), curate it (lists), or drift. Unless someone specifically blocks you or goes private, the world's open to you.

2. Blast-communication channel: Sometimes you can't wait for the evening broadcast, the paper, or even have access to a computer. All you need is a phone and a connection, and it becomes a tool to warn you about the incoming hurricane. Second only to radio (if you're in range).

3. Democratizing: because governments use it for its blast-communication features, people can talk directly to (or publicly about) government in a way that they haven't had before. Also, previously unseen and marginalized voices can now be seen and heard.

4. Organizing: the "social" in social media allows connections and networks to be made, and political movements have become adept at using media (including this one) as a tool to push for more accountability from their governments, especially autocratic/repressive ones.

There are other benefits, but I think those are the big four. It may not have been the original intention of this site's founders in creating it, but that's what Twitter has become.
Now consider the drawbacks.

1. Oligarchic: Twitter is fundamentally a platform with rules set by the top brass in a corporation, and we all have to work with that. Whether those rules are developed by committee or the whims of an egocentric man-child, it's a top-down architecture that undermines some of ...

... the benefits, especially democratizing and organizing.
2. Filtering: Increasingly, Twitter's been following other media in selectively showing what its algorithms think you want to see, rather than what you want to see. At best, serendipity. At worst, censorship.

3. It's a business: It has to make money to survive, to keep all those servers up and running, to create and tweak rules and algorithms. Selling ads is the traditional media business model, and still the one that makes the most sense for a private corporation.

4. Abuse: It's possible to take advantage of Twitter's networking abilities to target and heap abuse and threats on someone here. Dogpiling is a thing, and doxxing is facilitated by the broadcast capabilities here. Blocking is temporarily effective, since abusers can just ...

... get another account. Also, bots can make abuse a lot easier to wield at scale, to the detriment of people's safety and democracy as a whole. Remember that Trump's rise was directly facilitated by his command of his platform, and foreign actors, in particular RU, helped.

So, if we were to start over: global town square with mass-communication, organizing and democracy-forward capability, but not oligarchic, filtered, easily abused or subject to the needs of a business.

I think—big caveat here—that it would look a little like the #Mastodon #fediverse. It has *potential* to be a global town square, or several distinct ones, all linked together. It's not big enough to be a true venue for emergency management messaging, but it *could*.

Mastodon is also decentralized: there's no one home, but dozens or hundreds of servers worldwide. This goes a long way toward dismantling the oligarchic structure of a for-profit corporation. It's not perfect: each server is their own mini-universe, with its own admins, and ...

... there are definitely abusive, right-wing, and/or autocratic servers out there. But they can just as easily be blocked by your server, and the best servers are, if not democratically run, at least set up to give their users a say.

Mastodon is also not a business, and that's a huge deal. Many servers are run by volunteers who have a tip jar to defray costs. (Some may indeed be run as businesses, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. I'm still a newbie on that platform.)

And there is no built-in algorithm or AI to filter what you see; it's in the user's hands (or their admin's). That kind of local control can facilitate organizing and democratization efforts. It can also create a more bespoke experience.

Mastodon's decentralized nature makes it a bit less susceptible to abuse at scale, I think. Not totally free of it, but users can block, have their admin block, or just migrate to a better server if they're not getting the experience they want.

What makes it a bit harder to use as an abusive battlefield is what leads to Mastodon's drawbacks. Primarily, there's a learning curve involved. It's not Twitter, it works differently in a number of key ways. There are a zillion how-to-join-Mastodon guides out there to help.

Also, as for decentralization, your mileage may vary. The first server I joined, which I thought would be a good fit, almost immediate slapped me with a black mark and put me in jail for violating some rule—no one ever told me what it was I did. I left and joined another server.

Choosing the right server is key; it's not too difficult, but it's extra work on your end. The other main drawback is that it's still small, not everyone or everything you follow is there, and it may take a while before they are (if they don't go to another platform entirely.)

(I and others have noticed the big #TwitterMigration seems to be headed toward either Mastodon, Instagram, or a Substack/Tumblr/bloggy/newsletter-type thing. No one's talking about Facebook, which has many of the same problems as Twitter, but less utility.)

There are some useful tools out there to help migration to Mastodon; Debirdify in particular promises to help you find all the same accounts you followed before (if they're there). Seems promising. pruvisto.org/debirdify/

Ultimately, even if Twitter sticks around, there's little reason to believe it will be anything like the premusk version. We know what he's like. If he gets bored and goes away and sells it to some private equity company, that may or may not make things better.

I, personally, am hedging my bets, not leaving Twitter (I'll at least be here as long as I can control my account), but setting up a presence on Mastodon. Many new arrivals are doing a lot of legwork re-establishing connections, and posting helpful lists of their accounts.

The key to making Mastodon work is going to be patience: Patience with the overworked admins who are being *flooded* with new account registrations, patience with ourselves to learn the new rules of the road on a platform which looks deceptively like Twitter, but isn't.

("almost but not quite entirely unlike tea" comes to mind here. But I digress.)

Long story short, it's worth giving @joinmastodon a shot, but give yourself some leeway and patience to figure it out (do it on a weekend if you have more time then). And if you're so inclined, you can find me there: journa.host/@ChrisWinters. /End

*tool

@threadreaderapp unroll please