Of course, commercial social media sites don't want to be *good*, they want to be *profitable*. The unique dynamics of social media allow the companies to uncouple quality from profit, and more's the pity.

Social media grows thanks to #NetworkEffects - you join Twitter to hang out with the people who are there, and then other people join to hang out with you. The more users Twitter accumulates, the more users it *can* accumulate.

2/

But social media sites stay big thanks to high #SwitchingCosts: the more you have to give up to leave a social media site, the harder it is to go:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

Nature bequeaths some in-built switching costs on social media, primarily the #CoordinationProblem of reaching consensus on where you and the people in your community should go next.

3/

The more friends you share a social media platform with, the higher these costs are. If you've ever tried to get ten friends to agree on where to go for dinner, you know how this works. Now imagine trying to get *all* your friends to agree on where to go for dinner, for the rest of their lives!

But these costs aren't insurmountable. Network effects, after all, are a double-edged sword.

4/

Some users are above-average draws for others, and if a critical mass of these important nodes in the network map depart for a new service - like, say, #Mastodon - that service becomes the presumptive successor to the existing giants.

When that happens - when Mastodon becomes "the place we'll all go when Twitter finally becomes unbearable" - the downsides of network effects kick in and the double-edged sword begins to carve away at a service's user-base.

5/