The smaller scale of Mastodon is interesting

It puts me in mind of a 2010 column I wrote for Wired about "the virtue of obscurity": https://www.wired.com/2010/01/st-thompson-obscurity/

Back then, Twitter was still new. A "big" followership was like 4,000 people. A huuuuuge celebrity like Oprah had 1.5 million

I kept hearing from people in the middle of the pack, who slipped from "a few hundred mostly friends" to "10,000 strangers/randos"

They didn't always like it

Clive Thompson in Praise of Online Obscurity

When it comes to your social network, bigger is better. Or so we’re told. The more followers and friends you have, the more awesome and important you are. That’s why you see so much oohing and aahing over people with a million Twitter followers. But lately I’ve been thinking about the downside of having a […]

WIRED

@clive
I think this gets at what so many former #birdsite users may find so eerie…

We’re so used to the noise and the constant barrage of the #algorithm that the relative #sanity found on #mastodon and the #fediverse is…uncomfortable? unfamiliar?

LIKE WE’VE ALL BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO SCREAMING AT A ROCK CONCERT EVERYDAY, but today we’ve decided to try out the library.

Pardon me whilst I adjust my volume 

@FutureBacon @clive yes exactly this. People are not used to the slowness and effort. But I think it will be more rewarding.

@angelareadsbooks @FutureBacon Yep, precisely

There's a lot of friction built into the system

It is designed intentionally to *not* be so good at "following the zeitgeist" -- or *crafting* the zeitgeist

Since Twitter had more and more leaned into zeitgeist creation/monitoring, it feels weird to be in a place that isn't quite torqued for that purpose