Is Mastodon really a credible alternative to Twitter?

Listen to the audio version of the article

It happens every time. And every time we do not see mass escapes and collective removals. As much as the new Twitter owner may not like, it takes more than Elon Musk and his gunshots on democracies and journalism to convince people to abandon their followers. Usually the main reason is the absence of a credible alternative. This time, however, it is not valid because Mastodon is not bad at all.

How Mastodon Works

The new name is Mastodon. Founded in 2016 by the German Eugen Rochko, then 24, Mastodon has 4.4 million members. A figure that is growing considerably these days. According to Rochko himself, the news of Musk’s acquisition of Twitter triggered a spike in subscriptions. The social network is characterized by the absence of advertising and user profiling, but above all because it is entirely guided by its community, which controls and reports posts that violate the rules of use. The appearance is that of a Twitter-style microblogging, with a limit of 500 characters; describes itself as “the largest free, open-source and decentralized microblogging network in the world”. This is because it does not rely on a central server, but on a network of connected “nodes”, so much so that it is also defined as a “federated social network.” use and prohibited topics. For example on Mastodon.uno, which is the first generalist instance addressed only to Italian-speaking users, the apology of fascism is prohibited, as well as racism, sexism, transphobia, proselytism and religious intolerance, the spread intentional fake news.

So Mastodon can take the place of Twitter?

So if we are wondering if Mastodon is a credible alternative, the answer can only be positive. Not bad at all. However, it was not bad at all Be Real which had to supplant Instagram or Qwant which had to join Google as a search engine. Although alternative, credible and respectful of privacy, the new proposals have the limit of having to play the game in an economy like that of networks that does not allow number two. Whoever wins takes it all. Almost. And there is no ideology that holds. It is from the beginning of the digital platform economy that there has been talk of a return to origins, of a network without masters, and also respectful of privacy. Web 3.0 and the rhetoric of a blockchain-based service network free from the overwhelming power of a few large companies seems to have given more substance to a protest that is ancient and dates back to the end of the Dot.com bubble. The gravity forces of digital have since proved powerful and very violent. The theory of relativity of tech pushes consumers to revolve around the same products, talk on the usual social networks and interact with interoperable worlds, that is, with those services that talk to each other. In other words, we are led to use the same apps, always compare the same smartphone (but slightly better every year) and to trust our thoughts in written or visual form on the same social platforms. And it is also partly our fault.