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

@aristeon The Fediverse is decentralized by nature, more decentralized than WTS. In fact, by joining the Fediverse, WTS would be expanding both its reach and relevancy.

Remember, the Fediverse is a not a social network, but a collective of protocols and social networks.