BIG NEWS: Pawoo.net, the world's 2nd biggest Mastodon instance, has just been acquired.

The entity acquiring them is the Mask Group, a business that also runs mstdn.jp and mastodon.cloud. They are also active in the so-called "Web 3.0" space.

If you haven't heard of pawoo.net, it's because many instances have de-federated from it.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mask-network-acquires-pawoo-net-070000858.html

Yahooist Teil der Yahoo Markenfamilie

Like it or not, it should no longer be assumed that "volunteers" are running your instances.

The Mask Group, which now runs three large instances "has raised over US$50 million from private and institutional backers"—their words not mine.

There's going to be a massive land grab of all these big instances. There will be lots of merging and acquiring too.

My advice is that you all become *very* aware of who owns your instance and why.

Get to know your admins—make sure their values align with your own.

If you don't want to put your social media life in the hands of strangers, then self-host your own instance.

To everyone using mastodon.cloud and mstdn.jp: remember, you're not locked into those instances.

If you want, you can migrate elsewhere.

This is not Twitter—you have a choice regarding where your home will be on the Fediverse.

A warning: there's going to be a concerted effort to re-centralize the Fediverse.

As we've just seen with the acquisition of pawoo.net, that's already happening.

What are you going to do to thwart this trend?

@atomicpoet As much as I agree w/ you, such an effort will fail. We can all vote w/ our feet by walking away to other instances. And if such 're-centralized' instances get blocked, they lose the momentum of network effect fairly fast.
@gisiger Yes, that's one failsafe mechanism for the Fediverse. However, people need to care enough about de-centralization.

@atomicpoet @gisiger if you want people to care, you have to make it easy for them to discover.

My favorite idea is forming consortia of Mastodon admins with similar values to actively de-federate bad instances.

@atomicpoet @gisiger I'd say that for most, ease of communication is higher priority than decentralization. If the Fediverse continues to scale up, I fully expect that some dominant, but not exclusive, commercial sites that provide an attractive user experience will emerge, just as happened with email. Other instances can respond to that in various ways, but I don't expect that defederating them on principle would work any better than refusing to exchange email with AOL or gmail would have.
@JMarkOckerbloom @atomicpoet @gisiger
I chose aus.social purely for the ethics of it. I reckon rather a few ppl are keen to only support that which is independent & community-centred

@ZiptieZoe @atomicpoet @gisiger I agree many will, just as a number of people choose indie email services, often for ethical or privacy reasons. Though those email services generally keep exchanging email with the big providers, who serve the majority of email users and are cheaper & easier to use for many than most indie email services.

Any instance can of course refuse to federate with any other. But it'll be a very different experience on narrowly federating instances than on broad ones.

@atomicpoet @gisiger there will be some sort of attempt at “embrace and extend”…
@keepof4worlds @atomicpoet Isn't there always someone trying to do that?
@gisiger @atomicpoet oh yes - especially predators at the edge of the OSS firelight

@atomicpoet @gisiger also what Chris is doing is promoting situational awareness—which is key.

#fediverse #bigsocial

@gisiger @atomicpoet Maybe? But I bet the majority of people don't care about centralization at all and can't be bothered to move. And if there are enough people on centralized instances, blocking them won't matter, it will isolate us more than them.
@gisiger @atomicpoet Regardless, though, the vast majority of my friends and connections on Mastodon are on small servers and I will happily stay here with them.
@tessa @atomicpoet Well, there's one point I always make about social media: most people (i.e. the casual users) aren't actively looking for reach or fame or whatever. They're happy if they find their people, their community. They don't care about decentralizatrion or centralization. They simply go where their tribe is. But those people aren't the people who voice their concerns--they simply don't care. I don't blame them.
@gisiger @atomicpoet Defederating from large/consolidated instances solely because of their size/trajectory sounds self-marginalizing.