Chris TrottierJan 18, 2023

Another stupid hot take about the Fediverse. This time courtesy of Megan McArdle from the Washington Post.

Apparently, Mastodon is doomed because it solves problems most users don't care about.

Just like Linux is a failure—because only hobbyists and IT professionals use it.

Except—unknown to Megan—Linux is a huge success which runs on everything (including your router).

Also Megan seems unaware that the *actual* problem with social media really is centralization.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/17/twitter-mastodon-replacement-social-media/

Twitter might be replaced, but not by Mastodon or other imitators

Twitter's successor will probably be something not much like Twitter at all.

The Washington Post
Show threadChris TrottierJan 18, 2023

I'm so tired of these journalist hot takes about the Fediverse.

Elon Musk has declared war on journalists, banned them outright—including journalists from the Washington Post.

So what do these bottom feeders do?

Suck on the teat of Twitter all the more while bad-mouthing an actual solution that can save their dying industry.

Show threadChris TrottierJan 18, 2023

What gets me is that the Washington Post made big hoopla about starting their own instance.

And a few weeks after the media's narrative changes, they publish a big article about why Mastodon sucks.

As I've already demonstrated today, that narrative isn't even based on facts—it's pure fiction created by the Guardian to justify staying on Big Social.

Show threadChris TrottierJan 18, 2023

This is why no one should trust the Press to educate the masses about the Fediverse.

They will not give a fair assessment.

Instead, they will look at it as conflicting with their interests—and will spin up a narrative that coincides with their interests.

They don't want the Fediverse to succeed because it's not run by corporate interests.

And that's the subtext in Megan McArdle's article.

Show threadChris Trottier

The Press could easily re-claim the social distribution of their content by simply spinning up their own instances.

And if they were just *slightly* more ambitious, they would build their own social media software that integrates ActivityPub—customized for the needs of journalists.

Instead, they piss away their future by doubling down on Big Social.

Jan 18, 2023 at 6:07amWeb
Show threadChris TrottierJan 18, 2023

What really gets me about the Press is that they've spilled so much ink about the evil tech industry building dystopian social media tech.

And the moment that a bunch of hackers build something that disturbs this dystopia, what do they do?

They double down on the dystopian social media tech.

Show threadKevix (he/him) :debian:Jan 18, 2023
@atomicpoet
I'm guessing they can't embrace anything anti-capitalist?
Show threadAndiJan 18, 2023
@atomicpoet what Apartheid Clyde said about the rat app applies to most of the press equally as well:
Show threadAndiJan 18, 2023
@atomicpoet 2023 is already so not Muskrat’s year: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2023/01/17/tesla-full-self-driving-tunnel-pileup-contd-gr-orig.cnn
Show threadPaul JacobsonJan 18, 2023
@atomicpoet There is definitely a missed opportunity here for them.
Show threadJudeNungaJan 18, 2023

@atomicpoet
Corporate media is dying, slowly but surely.

It comes down to a simple point many of them just don't understand. The vast bulk of people don't need them, we don't need their opinions, we don't need to know their "takes" on anything. We don't need to know the ins and outs of every celebrity/politician/greedite in the world.

I haven't bought a newspaper, online or other, in decades. I don't watch commercial TV, and now I don't have any other social media but the Fediverse.

I'm as informed as I ever was about what is actually happening day to day in the world, and I'm a whole lot better informed about everything the corporate media ignores. I'm also a lot less stressed.

Show threadJMJan 18, 2023
@JudeNunga @atomicpoet The problem is not newspapers themselves. It is consensual opinions on newspapers. There are some organisations that provide more "subversive" opinions but they are less popular
Show threadJudeNungaJan 18, 2023

@pythagore @atomicpoet

That's not the point I was making though, corporate media is dying regardless.

We just don't need them, they're irrelevant to many people. It doesn't matter what their opinions are. Maybe people are starting to think for themselves?

Show threadhalikularJan 18, 2023
@JudeNunga @pythagore @atomicpoet I agree there’s a real problem when random people on the Internet has higher integrity than news media and corporate journalists. Yet, who’s funding the news you do find out about anyway from friends and family, and the internet? Chances are it’s subscriptions, ads, and taxes. We still need them but their role is changing. Do keep in mind that something like 95% of news we consume is non actionable and irrelevant and can only be seen as entertainment at best.
Show threadJudeNungaJan 18, 2023

@halikular @pythagore @atomicpoet
Any important news I normally get from our taxpayer funded national broadcaster. The other news might be interesting but it's of little relevance.

Family news is just that, from family, and friends, and of no interest to others.

I don't rely much on news from social media, and prefer to use social media as more of an interesting way to discover and communicate.

Show threadJMJan 18, 2023
@halikular @JudeNunga @atomicpoet yes of course. I was more refering to media paid by subscriptions (like Mediapart in France).
I don't see media paid by ads as good because thay have to keep their ad providers happy and that can influence their line.
For the ones paid by taxes, it depends on how it's done. Russia today is also paid by taxes for example. But for what I've seen, public media in Europe seems to have some standards.
Show threadOsma A 🇫🇮🇺🇦Jan 18, 2023
@atomicpoet Remember the time Huffington Post (as they were then called) and BuzzFeed re-invented what news distribution looked like? I do. It may be that the world needs a new media company to do this again. I am kind of surprised the Vox Media properties haven't jumped on this.
Show threadGerty SteinblattJan 18, 2023

@atomicpoet
"Big social" buys a lot of advertising in press publications. Those outlets are paid puppet mouthpieces.

But you knew that. :)

Show threadVincent St. Pierre 🇨🇦Jan 18, 2023

@atomicpoet eggghhhh. The press fired their researchers and copy-editors a long time ago, so I'm not sure they'd have the ability to hire a programmer. Patreon-WordPress integration is probably as far as they go. And tech journalism oft' focuses on press releases and media events, with focuses on sponsorship to replace dwindling ad revenue...

  It makes me worried for the fifth estate. 😢

Show threadChris TrottierJan 18, 2023
@vsp Hey, it's their future.
Show threadVincent St. Pierre 🇨🇦Jan 18, 2023
@atomicpoet it makes me worried, Chris. 😢
Show threadtestingJan 18, 2023

@atomicpoet

«Instead, they piss away their future by doubling down on Big Social.» they embraced big social in the past when print media had already been in a downward spiral for almost a decade > they fear tiktok now > they are not innovators, but attention seekers

Show threadJohnWJan 18, 2023

@atomicpoet This actually smells a little like fear to me.

As more people get fed up and move away from centralized social media, the mainstream, corporate owned press may start to sneak in snippets that downplay Mastodon and similar.

Potentially losing their corporate clout is probably worrisome to them, but enjoyable to us.

You explained the fix... a simple matter. Whether they figure out that this could be a good thing for them remains to be seen.

Show threadDavid GerhartJan 18, 2023
@atomicpoet What kills me, and I need to keep saying it is that by continuing to intellectually slouch on these issues, their editorial labor is exploited - Their content is fueling the economic feudalism of corporate social media.
Show threadauthor_is_ShrikeTron🔠💉x5Jan 18, 2023

@atomicpoet "Big Social" is free IT and hosting, so they can focus on their content. But the big outlets that can afford their own large websites should be able to run their own social instances.

However, they need reach that's common to everybody - which loops back to "big social" as lowest energy point. Disqus/etc commenting systems didn't otherwise break out and dominate.

Of course the trade-off and core problem is when "infrastructure social" gets privatized by a single PERSON.