[daveid]

About a year ago I wrote an essay with this idea [1]. You really don't want your company to be at the behest of facebook/twitter, they can pull the plug on you, change their algorithms, change their rules, force you to pay up, since they control the audience. This is why a platform like Mastodon [2] is attractive (or should be attractive!) to businesses. If you host your own instance of Mastodon, you have full control over your own megaphone.

And that's just the basic principle. Given that Mastodon does not attempt to mess with people's feeds using clever algorithms, instead accepting that when people follow someone they want to see those posts in chronological order, it should be even more attractive to companies used to facebook hiding their posts from their own fans unless they pay up.

[1]: https://medium.com/@Gargron/two-reasons-why-organizations-sh... [2]: https://joinmastodon.org/

[maksimum]

There are many pros to a de-centralized and self-governing social network. The con is the network effect working against it. So in whose interest is it to push this network? You argued that businesses should, because Facebook might cut them off in the future. But in the now Mastodon doesn't have customers. Individuals may not like what Facebook is doing with their data, but inconvenience is hard to sell. I'm genuinely curious how people think adoption of decentralized social networks can be accelerated?

[egypturnash]

Of course, other instance owners may choose to block you for being A Brand, as well. One of the rules of my instance is "don’t be a corporation, or be sponsored by one", and I'm debating if I’d end up blocking corporate instances.

[empath75]

Why would I advertise on a platform that has no users?