I notice this happening on multiple social media sites, and it always contributes to the death of social networks:
1. Progressives tend to be early adopters because they usually create culture
2. Reactionaries tend to be late adopters because they usually consume culture
3. Reactionaries then try to seize power because the culture isn't to their liking
4. Progressives leave because they want to create culture
5. Then reactionaries leave because no culture is being created
Ex: see screenshot.
What's old is new again. What's happening to Twitter right now already happened to Digg.
Remember the Digg Patriots?
Their attempt to take control of the front page resulted in Digg's doom.
And it's also happening to Facebook. No one goes to Facebook anymore for fresh culture.
When the culture of social media dies, so does the social network.
Of course, what I find *more* fascinating is that the people who own social networks and news publications are almost never progressive.
But they know very well to position their sites as a destination for progressivism -- because progressives create the content people want to see.
A good example is Vice Magazine.
The folks who founded it are the most extreme right wing jerks you'll ever meet.
I mean, Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes also founded the Proud Boys.
As others have pointed out, the gentrification of social networks echoes the gentrification of real life neighbourhoods too.
But it happens a lot quicker.
Notice that right now on Twitter, progressives are kicking up a fuss.
They don't want to leave.
This is their neighbourhood.
But they'll have to leave -- they don't own Twitter. They've always been renters. The only reason you were ever around was to make the place desirable.
And now you're being evicted!
What I want folks of the #TwitterMigration to consider:
When you join Mastodon, be careful about your role in the potential gentrification of this social network!
I say this because I'm noticing more and more high status folk making this their home.
That's fine.
But before you came, this place had a culture -- a very real and vibrant one.
And now that you're here, other high status people are sure to follow -- those people will try to seize this space!
If you want your social media neighbourhood to resist gentrification, you could make it harder for the gentrifiers through one unique trick:
Decentralization!
Specifically by:
1. Creating accounts on small instances.
2. Self-hosting your own instances.
3. Connecting with encrypted peer-to-peer messengers
4. Creating communities built on open protocols -- not platforms
Reactionaries can gentrify one space. They can't gentrify all of them!
Someone suggested that no one can be evicted from the Fediverse.
Sure, no one can be evicted from the Fediverse itself, but they can be evicted from individual gentrified instances.
In fact, that's already happened.
I've spoken to a number of folks from underrepresented communities that were told to leave certain instances because their ethnicity/sexuality/gender expression were making others uncomfortable.
Just food for thought for you.
So yeah, if you *don't* want to enable gentrification on the Fediverse, I suggest the following:
1. Report abuse on your instance -- all of it
2. If your instance admin refuses to take action, leave it -- go elsewhere
3. Join *small* instances that best represent your values, or self-host an instance if you want the *best* representation of your values
Someone just said, "Chris, you're being a hypocrite: you're telling everyone to use small instances when you, yourself, are on mastodon.social!"
Well, would it interest you to know that I host *FOUR* different instances?
Two of them are closed, and two of them are open for registrations.
These instances are:
1. peerverse.space
2. atomicpoet.org
3. vancity.social
4. yyj.social
So I am, in fact, putting my money where my mouth is.
@atomicpoet so the intolerant mod of an instance who pushes users off, those users should leave pre-emptively, right? But users leaving the instance would abandon the gentrified instances.
I think I am missing something.
@TheSean It's all very simple. If you don't want to enable gentrification of instances, don't tolerate it. Specifically, don't tolerate admins who enable it.
You have freedom of association.
If your favourite bar in town slowly becomes a hang-out spot for white supremacists, it's time to leave and never come back.
I hope I'm becoming incredibly clear, and this isn't me entertaining a sea lion.
@shawrd773 I guess the abusive gentrified instances exist and should be avoided
@atomicpoet said "many of the folks on #BlackMastodon have literally been told to leave their old instances because their presence was making others uncomfortable" so shoudn't the users being pushed off the instance just be glad that they know that instance is 1 of those abusive and others should leave if that happens or should the user pushed off try to get back to their original instance?
@TheSean @shawrd773 Nobody should be glad that the admin of an instance is being a racist.
This isn't something worth celebrating.
I'm blocking you now.
@atomicpoet Unless we are running our own instance, we are "guests" who can asked or made to leave by their "host". Even running our own instance, unless we are using our own hardware, we could be "evicted" from an infrastructure provider.
An aspect I like about the Fediverse is that individuals and instances can filter/block and therefore curate the kind of experience their own users want. "Free Speech" doesn't mean I have to listen.
@atomicpoet The very walls that we built to keep some people out have now become walls that other people use to box us in.
The #fediverse didn't prevent or end silo-ing and echo chambers. It just made them smaller.
Our collective hope is that since they are silo-ed away, we won't hear much from them. My fear is they will become loud and we still won't hear them.
Chris Trottier
Sean Finnerty
RDS (shawphd on Twitter)
malcriada_lala_
Synth Morxemplum
MeidasRomi
Frankie Saxx
ink cannery girl
Alan Gamrican
Shrikant Joshi