zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
The underlying issue: Musk's incentives don't give him much reason to care if Twitter goes under. Musk likely feels he might as well push for any changes he likes, and gain whether Twitter survives or not.

What was Musk's biggest bugbear about 'old' Twitter? The moderation system. If Twitter goes under, the only practical alternative at the moment is Mastodon, and Mastodon can't replicate Twitter's moderation due to its architecture. So Musk gets what he wants anyway. He doesn't have much to lose in this scenario: Financially, he'd remain a very rich person. One can argue he'd be better off without Twitter anyway.

>>yyyk+4f
Hate speech is far more tolerated on Twitter than on Mastadon. It’s not a free for all.

>>jquery+Mo
Doesn't that depend on the instance (with some not being as strict)? Regardless, such people could always decamp to their own servers - an option that was not available with Twitter. Also, volunteer instance admins will never have the resources Twitter has had to combat abuse.

>>yyyk+Sq
"Their own servers" has always existed, just look at Truth Social. And in the same way you don't have to go to that site, Mastodon supports blocking entire instances.

Lots of instances also screen signups. There's no requirement for them to accept everyone. The server that Marcan (M1 Linux) and Alyssa Rosenzweig (Linux GPU drivers) are on claim a total of 700 active users for example. You'll still get new content as your users can boost (retweet) from other servers, while they act as gatekeepers by not boosting others.

Tumblr announced they would join the Fediverse. That would be interesting. Of course nothing stops Twitter from joining either.