It takes blog posts to discover these because Mastodon micro communities aren't discoverable and no one knows which ones to sign up for. Mastodon has no long term potential. We're still waiting for the Twitter replacement.
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding the whole design.
As an analogy, there might be some interesting discussions happening at my local Community Center, or my neighbor's house, but I would have no way of knowing. But to discover these discussions, I would need to meet someone with a shared interest who would, in turn, share with me a place that they go to for continued discussions and to hang out with interesting people who share an interest.
So maybe, if done correctly, this is a feature? The good content is one extra network connection away, but easy enough to find if an advocate chooses to highlight content, share a connection, or otherwise create an inbound reference to the community.
If you had a way to search like "hey there's an interesting conversation going on at my local community center, maybe I will go and join their next session."
wouldn't you?
Social media is valuable, that’s why people use it. It would be nice if we end up coordinating on social media that aren’t toxic or addictive. Unfortunately mastodon may not make that happen, as GP said.
That doesn't follow. Neither of those two statements seems self-evident.
People typically follow social media for a number of reasons and to my mind novelty and the pretense of a sense of community are the biggest one. But the latter is usually just paper thin. In "successful social media" most social interactions are either fleeting or superficial. You argue on the Internet with strangers and you pigeonhole them to fit your biases. The entire focus for social media is to drive up "engagement" because clicks and views mean more ad revenue and a bigger "audience". And as the effort of providing something genuinely interesting is a lot higher than something provocative (which has the benefit of being able to simply be an outright lie), that's where social media inevitably trends towards.
Pre-social media spaces were a lot more social in the sense of being communal: IRC chat rooms would have old guard regulars, often lurking around in case something interesting pops up; moderation would happen very bluntly and immediately to set clear house rules about what is or isn't acceptable behavior. Forums had a much lower frequency but followed similar patterns. There was a clear sense of a shared culture if you stuck around long enough and people would actually avoid hanging around in the extremely large forums or chat rooms because they were "too noisy" to have a conversation. It would usually be where you'd go to seek advice or help you couldn't find elsewhere and any follow-up would usually happen in a more confined space like DMs.
What social media has effectively done is looked at the extremely large and noisy spaces and decided that this is what everything should be like by default and then bolted on some ways to keep track of what conversations you were having while mixing the ideas of "people that seem interesting/nice" and "accounts that post interesting content", productizing and transactionalizing all social interactions. Even Mastodon is guilty of this but on the smaller instances at least the scale is limited by default.
The problem with social media being the "marketplace of ideas" is that you normally go to the market to get new things and then you go to work, go home or go to your "third place" (e.g. your peer group, your pub, your club house) where you can all show each other what you got. Social media wants to be all of those places but because the marketplace is the only part that makes money, that's all it delivers.
Twitter, for example, aimed to be a single, universal town square. Mastodon follows much closer to forums where you find yourself in smaller, potentially more tightknit communities
Both have pros and cons. I don't expect Mastodon will give people the same value as social media, but it won't have some of the downsides either. Similarly, I don't expect social media will ever be sustainable as a coordination platform without toxicity and doom scrolling.
Not everyone needs their content to reach record # of visitors.
There's also boardreader.com for finding small communities, although I don't think it really tilts towards Mastodon very much.
Check out some trending people/topics on Nostr here: https://nostr.band/
Federation means we have numerous copies of every single post ever shared floating around somewhere, that's a massive waste of resources IMO. Similarly, the amount of network traffic grows exponentially as the number of full nodes grows and again wastes a ton of resources. Those kinds of issues could be mitigated by limiting the number of full nodes on the network, but then you are driving towards a centralized system again.
Federation works really well when the different groups are infrequently interacting. Sure there could be a mechanism to jump into another circle, but if federation means multiple servers needing to know the entire state of the world the scaling and coordination problems just don't seem worth it.
I don't think it's really that big of a waste..
Mastodon exists and it is good at being a federated microblogging service. Threads exists and it is good at the metrics it's built to deliver. Bluesky exists and it is good at being its own little club house. Truth Social exists and it is good at being Trump's soapbox. Gab exists and it is good at being whatever it is.
Twitter hit a magic sweet spot that can't be replicated. It was also a terrible place even before the cultural shifts (including those prior to the leveraged buyout). It was the place celebrities would show their entire ass to journalists and everyone could tag along to tell them how terrible they were. It was also the most readily accessible source for "citizen journalism" with unfiltered live coverage of major tragedies and other "breaking news" - but this has now become impossible as it has also become easily accessible to spread falsehoods that overwhelm any attempt at fact checking.
X's "revenue sharing" mechanism that effectively monetizes outrage bait may be what's killing Twitter for good but even prior to that Twitter was already dead. Heck, Twitter was always bad even when it was useful. At times the up sides just outweighed the down sides if you knew how to use it. For many this involved "not being political" (which is already not an option if your identity deviates from the "norm" in obvious ways, e.g. being a woman) and sticking to specific niches. But the discoverability of these niches is also what made them prone to the inevitable Twitter drama.