If you're still a Twitter user, a paywall should offend you since Elon Musk is attempting to monetize content *you* have made—and not compensate you for it.

At least the New York Times' makes ethical sense. They pay their writers.

Personally, I spend $50/month to use the Fediverse.

I'm not against monetization of social media services.

But there's something profoundly icky about a Twitter paywall.

I have no doubt that putting the entirety of Twitter behind a paywall will grow the Fediverse.

But I don't celebrate this. People's entire professional livelihoods depend on Twitter being public.

By the way, activists have been warning for years about Big Social *owning* your content and charging for it.

Most of us didn't listen because we traded the rights over our work for convenience.

If you don't think tweets are work, well they are. Valuable enough that a billionaire paid money to own them.

And now he wants to charge money for access to your work!

Twitter's potential paywall is why I'm so mindful of where I live on social media.

1. Mastodon is a non-profit, and I provide donations for it.
2. I self-host three instances
3. I de-federate from any instance I consider unethical

The Fediverse is so valuable because it at least offers better control over your data than Big Social.

Your data is easier to archive here.

You can more easily migrate from one instance to another.

You can self-host, and post from *your site*.

Personal data is the new oil.

Back in 2020, I calculated the worth of companies that harvest your personal data. It was in the ballpark of $4 trillion dollars.

Why is it so valuable? Because many services can't function without the collection of your personal data.

Surveillance capitalism is literally what makes much of the economy work.

But here's the outrageous thing. You—the person whose data is being harvested—don't see a cut of the windfall.