Tech journalism doesn’t know what to do with Mastodon
I loved this line, cause I hadn&#x27;t looked at it from this angle before:<p>&quot;For some reason, people who would never read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Procter and Gamble acquiring a new shampoo company will devour content about Microsoft acquiring a tech startup they’ve never heard of.&quot;<p>This is so true. I&#x27;ve known people who get this instant passion for an area they know nothing about, if it brushes up against an area they do know something about, and want to start analyzing it like baseball card stats or something. But they&#x27;re basically reading a card that&#x27;s a square kilometre in size about a sport they have never played or watched for any amount of time longer than it takes to momentarily look at, and then flip past, a PBS cricket match (if you&#x27;re North American and have no British relatives).<p>edit: Only modification I would make to the article would be to emphasize that not only does Mastadon work in a way that is antithetical to contemporary understandings of how the internet works, it more importantly <i>embodies</i> the way that the Internet worked before capitalism showed up.<p>I gave up on slogans as a means of social change decades ago, but I would love to see &quot;Protocols Not Platforms&quot; get more traction in the zeitgeist.