Following change in Twitter’s ownership and subsequent changes to content moderation policies, many in academia looked to move their discourse elsewhere and migration to Mastodon was pursued by some. Our study looks at the dynamics of this migration. Utilizing publicly available user account data, we track the posting activity of academics on Mastodon over a one year period. Our analyses reveal significant challenges sustaining user engagement on Mastodon due to its decentralized structure as well as competition from other platforms such as Bluesky and Threads. The movement lost momentum after an initial surge of enthusiasm as most users did not maintain their activity levels, and those who did faced lower levels of engagement compared to Twitter. Our findings highlight the challenges involved in transitioning professional communities to decentralized platforms, emphasizing the need for focusing on migrating social connections for long-term user engagement.
To increase engagement, I propose we have some idiots volunteer to respond to every scientific article and achievement on Mastodon with ridicule and skepticism.
Oh, right. Like that’s gonna help. Pfft.
(How was that)
You’re perfect ❤️.
Nonsense. If they were perfect, wouldn’t they have used a question mark? Your judgement of character is laughable. What empirical evidence is there that they are perfect?
(How was that?)
Beautiful 😍.
“Hurt me, daddy.”
“OK, now you’ve made it weird.”
“Aw yeah, that’s the stuff.”
I gave in to peer pressure and finally got Twitter right before shit completely hit the fan, even though I was already uncomfortable with it. I already had a Mastodon user, but not under my real name.
Then, during the exodus, I created a Mastodon user for academic use. This was a few months before defending my PhD in social sciences.
For a while, I was posting the same content on both platforms. On Twitter I am followed by a lot of people in my field, and many of them are still active. On Mastodon, there’s like… two active people specifically in my field.
Still, whenever I post anything both places, I have gotten more interactions on Mastodon than on Twitter. On Twitter a couple of people see it and boost, and they can be somewhat central in the field. But then it kind of deflates. On Mastodon, I get boosts from the ones there in the field, people in adjacent fields (for example the #rstats crowd), interested people from civil society, commentators, a real variety of people. Hell, the other day I was boosted by a folk singer I’ve been a fan of for years but that I didn’t even know was on there.
Meanwhile, I occasionally check the temperature on Bluesky, and I bridge my posts there. Many in my field signed up while it was invite only. Some of them posted one or two posts back then. I haven’t seen any actively since, and nobody from my field has followed my bridged account - but one R stats person has.
I guess they must be on Twitter still, if they are anywhere.
Anyway, point is, my field indeed failed to migrate. But I still achieve more by posting on Mastodon than on Twitter.
I think I saw a paper on this kind of thing over a year ago. Iirc, it said that engagement is lower on Mastodon, but higher quality.
37% of them went so far as to get a mastodon account and mention it in their twitter profile, and then maybe one third of those put some substantial effort into making it work. That’s ~90% who didn’t bother. In the one small-ish academic field where I followed some of the new arrivals on mastodon when they got there, it very much appeared to me that the failure had nothing to do with the decentralized nature of the platform. It was simply that the small number who made the transition did not add up to enough to form a critical mass and get the discussion going. Some few of them did give it a good try.
As much as people around these parts despise algorithmic feeds, I suspect an algorithmic feed would’ve worked far better in this situation to feed all academic based content to someone immediately on account creation if they show interest/ follow peers in the field.
This would’ve helped the migration since they most likely don’t know the accounts of the Twitter accounts posting academic content as that was algorithmically fed as well. I’m really doubtful it’s a problem with decentralization, seems to me mastodon had a problem with both not having a critical mass and the content that was there wasn’t easy enough to find.
In general, this is true of the broader population as a whole. Mastodon got the size that it’s an actual place (and I think this applies to lemmy/threadiverse too). But it’s by no means “THE place” or even categorically a big public place. More like old-school forums that have a particular user base and vibe that you visit from time to time.
For the fediverse, the “migration” was exciting and successful, but compared to big-social, a drop in the ocean. And the biggest clue for that is that the people most excited about Threads joining the fediverse are Evan (author and lead “advocate” of ActivityPub) and Gargron (masto CEO/founder) … they want to taste that big-social scale and know that they don’t have it and likely never will.
The problem with comparing “engagement” across platforms is that it is never apples to apples. My experience on Mastodon has been that the engagement is lower in quantity, but much higher in quality. The number of meaningful and thoughtful engagements is much higher. The number of enduring connections is much higher.
If you want to interact with people who are seeking your exact content, if you want to build fidelity, if you want more meaningful comments and to build community, there is no better place I’ve found than Mastodon.
Social mass media favors “influencers” who create content that has broad appeal, but no depth or meaningful engagement, or else ragebait that attracts conflict and repetitive comments.
I don’t have experience with Twitter or Mastodon but it reminds me of time when I quit drinking.
When I quit drinking and tried to stay around people I used to drink with, I realized really fast how pointless this “engagement” (really just two people speaking past each other, and feeling like they have deep conversation) is. It’s almost insulting what a waste of effort such an “engagement” can be.
Reality for mastodon, I think, is that the “migration” is basically over, and has been for over a year now. The Brazilian move to BlueSky (and not mastodon) highlights it very well.
Recalibrating on what we want and can do with the fediverse, as well as how central we want the mastodon project to be, are the best things to do now.
For me, it seemed like Gargron didn’t really know how to speak about the lack of a Brazilian migration to mastodon in favour of BlueSky, and handle a new moment of actually dropping in popularity or perceived relevance (having been the underdog then rising start for a while), which I take as a cue that being the dominant center of the fediverse isn’t a natural fit for Gargron and his project, to the point where the fediverse may have just outgrown it.
So, random thoughts:
- I think de-emphasising mastodon as the fediverse’s big player and surest means of gaining users is likely a good idea in the medium to long term. Replacing twitter for twitter users is now something others do substantially better: Threads and BlueSky. While I’m not sure Mastodon, or its decentralisation, offers anything particularly novel, different or attractive. If anything, its lack of compatibility with other fediverse platforms is likely a negative.
- More broadly, a focus on microblogging is best de-emphasised, for the same reasons as above. Conspicuously, mastodon is the only platform that’s really trying to replicate twitter-style microblogging. Just about every other platform tries to go beyond it in some way.
- Instead, IMO, community building through richer and more flexible platforms is what the fediverse should focus on, in large part because it matches what the fediverse’s decentralisation actually provides: control and ownership over your community.
- Indeed, I think the fediverse needs to kinda wake up to what it really is. So much of the advocacy during the twitter migration was pushing the idea that the decentralisation doesn’t really matter (and “it’s just like email”) and can be ignored for the most part.
- In reality, it does matter and can’t be easily ignored. And the world has more or less realised that, with mastodon (and the fediverse) now suffering from a branding issue.
- So I say the way forward is to accept what decentralisation is and either add an additional layer to polish the UX, or lean into it and build on it rather than pretend this place is something else.
- By community building, I mean “flexible space creation” that likely translates to a range of relatively composable features, structures and content types and formats. Basically, stop rebuilding big-social style platforms, and build “humane spaces” that more or less comprise any/all of the formats of the existing platforms in a way that people can use however they want.
- Unfortunately, this is likely not trivial, at all, and would likely require better organisation amongst those contributing to the fediverse, and perhaps improvements to the protocol itself.
As for the threadiverse (lemmy, piefed, mbin, nodebb etc), it’s always struck me that group based structures (EG, lemmy communities) seem to work better over federation. Account migration from instance to instance is simpler, in part because the user is not the central organisation. Which instance you’re on doesn’t really matter that much. Also, blocking a whole community seems a useful middle ground between blocking a user and defederating a whole instance at the instance level, and ditto with community level moderation which can operate over federation. Additionally, the little technical talk I’ve seen on the issue seems to indicate that moving a community from instance to another might actually be quite viable.
If true, then community building might be best started with the group based platforms. Maybe an ecosystem of formats that involves all of them other than microblogging might work well?? Perhaps user-based content could take on a different structure from what microblogging does … perhaps something like what BlueSky does could be adapted to fuse user-based structures into group-based platforms like lemmy (IE, your content exists in a pod which you can own and which is portable, which is then sucked up into various public feeds depending on what permissions you provide)??
Things like private communities, group chats, blogs, wikis (and RSS feed management?) intuitively seem to me to pair well with group-based platforms and community building.
The best we can do with current tools is just trying to tie multiple platforms/views together I think. Programming.dev runs a bunch of different services under the same umbrella like that, and I’ve setup something similar on bestiver.se / xxxiver.se
I think having communities that consist of a group of fediverse services like that are probably the way forward in the short term. I kinda want to package that up as a ‘Verse as a Service sort of thing, but I’m still not sure if anybody will be willing to pay for it.
Definitely interesting idea (I hadn’t really quite seen it formalised like this)! I’ve kinda had vague similar-ish thoughts along these lines too.
Any chance you’d be willing to go into any more detail, or point to specifics? I’m not familiar with what’s going on over on bestiver or programming.dev in the way of service-type things.
I think a new #platform needs to emerge from this
As in a new one would be necessary to do the sorts of things I’m suggesting … or the current moment requires a sort of rebranding and pivot that is best served by a new platform?
Both of those reasons are valid. I think a lot of people are noticing general difficulties and lack of seamless interoperability between the platform types, which definitely makes it hard to choose where is the most opportune place to be on. If there is a platform that does it better, I bet people will start to notice.
If there is a platform that does it better, I bet people will start to notice.
Yea … I suspect it’s a protocol problem more than any one platform, because there’s just too much flexibility in the protocol and so any inter-platform transfer is necessarily noisy. Multiplied by the number of platforms, and you get quite a bit of noise.
To your point though, a new platform that kinda does it all on its own could likely take off quite well and then set a new de facto standard around how to do things. Bonfire seemed to be that, and may still be. AFAIU, they’re trying to solve performance issues right now before properly opening up.
Could be, but I kind of feel like the protocol might be close enough and that it just needs the right implementation. I think Kbin almost had it, but just needed more refinement.
I’m definitely excited for bonfire though, seem like it’s got tons of potential!
I have the same issue with Reddit, there’s a middle size good quality subreddit about my specific job which is the best place on the internet to see news and discussions about it in one place. It helps me increase and test my knowledge a lot.
Is there such a community here? Maybe you could start one.
I tried that. No one ever really joined. I tried posting content, and no one ever engaged with it.
Guess theres not many childcare educators on Lemmy as the reddit community is always super active.
I honestly wouldn’t expect to see a lot of that, being that in my anecdotal evidence the majority of K-12 educators would likely fall under a more generalized population, than what lemmy currently is, which is generally very technical and STEM oriented.
All the other subs on Reddit didn’t exist until general population got pulled in with memes, and started partaking in communities there. Lemmy is just like Reddit was, when Reddit was young.
Did you try promoting it on [email protected] and [email protected] ?
Yes there is, but very little subscribers and no activity. I think it’s too niche to have the required critcal size with the current size of the Lemmy user base.
News, tech, left-wing politics, memes, anime, and porn are Lemmy’s biggest community types.
I know a lot of different subtopics fit under each, and I’m sure I left a few top level subjects out, but my point is that there are a lot of mid-sized, and especially smaller (by Reddit standards), subreddits that Lemmy is no where near being remotely useful as a replacement for yet.
I have community subreddit collections that I don’t see Lemmy replacing anytime soon. I mean, I hope they do. I still check every so often, and yes, communities for them exist and they have maybe a few dozen users, but not enough to even try to just suck it up and deal.
Hot take of the day: academia doesn’t need social media.
I don’t think this is true, maybe not at all.
Academia, by its nature, is socially exclusionary. So what they want/need is the ability to have flexibly closed spaces as well as very public spaces. Big-social never really provided that and in many ways I think academia is being kinda left behind by social media.
All fields need an information sharing platform. Historically, it was in person at conferences or conventions and such. Now it’s online and continuous.
Does it need to be online and continuous?
Yeah, I think that they do need a public and easily accessed place to present information, but I can’t for the life of me (per the article) see why engagement would matter much at all in that context.
It doesn’t need to exist at all. But being online and continuous obviously speeds communication.
deleted by creator
Many people will always be obsessed with “engagement”, and there’s no saving them. They’ve been under the influence of big tech social media for too long, and it becomes an addiction.
The fediverse is an option to get away from this, but it certainly is not a cure. The only cure is the willingness to help yourself and change.
You know who else is obsessed with engagement? Clickbait authors
