>Not if the other platform is decentralized...

Like all of the other decentralized social media platforms that most people just don't care about? I'd argue that social media has become so polarized that, no matter their views, most people will want some sort of centralized body setting rules that act in their (the user's) interests.

>... and doesn't rely on advertising money.

People have widely adopted social media because they're not charged anything (aside from their privacy being invaded) to use it. How is such a platform staying online without charging users or using advertiser money?

> centralized body setting rules that act in their (the user's) interests.

Not sure it's possible. Only if you (or your friend) are the admin, you will like the rules.

> How is such a platform staying online without charging users or using advertiser money?

It's much more secure and reliable (long-term) to have a sustainable small server for friends than to rely on a huge anti-user for-profit company. One could also create a paid service. For example, I am using a paid email-provider.

A new social media platform taking off through ad revenue is enough of a lottery, let alone through a paid service.

Even if it’s as low as $1 a month, you’re not gonna get average users to join a new social media platform in the name of politics.

People want to connect with their friends, that’s all they ever wanted out of these sites.

I suggest that only some servers are paid. Others can be run by yourself or your friends. And they can federate. It definitely works with email, even though a large part of the network is from Google. All we need is a federated protocol (which AFAIK is already even required by GDPR).

That is true, I’ve looked at Twitter and went “how is something so basic in functionality not an open standard?”.

Although it’s not always as intuitive as email. IRC could’ve extended into something like Discord had it not been so programmer centric.

Either way, these people have us by the balls over already established syndication capabilities like RSS, just weighted in their direction(s).

> I’ve looked at Twitter and went “how is something so basic in functionality not an open standard?”.

Mastodon (Activity Pub) is basically the open standard you are looking for here.

I know, and I've seen it. A lot of the major publishers like CNN are loosely mirrored and far less consistent.

With enough man power, you can recreate anything, but without a strong userbase, well...

And don't even get me started on a name like "Mastodon", lol.

> a federated protocol (which AFAIK is already even required by GDPR).

You might be thinking of the GDPR's Right to Data Portability[0] which includes "the right to transmit those data to another controller ... by automated means".

This should require Facebook to synch the posts you make on their website to another account you hold on a Fediverse node, but unfortunately it doesn't require Facebook to synch content that you can see (but didn't produce) from their website to that node.

[0] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-20-gdpr/

Thank you, I stand corrected. Still, a good step in the right direction.

>How is such a platform staying online without charging users or using advertiser money?

The resources required to provide the world with the valuable parts of these services are small enough to be funded through non-profits or benefit corporations. I'd gladly donate my time and money to a 501c3 facebook killer.

The damage is done by the psychological manipulation used to keep people engaged with the platform, not the centralization or advertising.

Platforms that eschew psychological manipulation don't grow as large. That is the proverbial cat.

But if it was centralized, convenient, had shareholders and an advertising budget to get peoples attention faster than the decentralized one, then they’ll suck up the advertising money.

People are exchanging time for money. They will do this.