(30-11-2017, 05:46 PM)jkl Wrote: Theory: Mastodon, the dozenth attempt at making GNU Social a viable Twitter alternative, will not succeed. Twitter will continue to be the leading micro-blogging network because, unlike its various wannabe successors, it remains consistent. There is one Twitter where everyone can talk to anyone.

1. One should keep in mind that Mastodon is not GNU Social, even though they can communicate among one another.
2. The whole point of the anti-Twitter microblogging movement is that is isn't one thing, but that there are multiple instances. I don't see how this is an argument against Masodon or any other decentralized MB network
3. Why does everyone have to replace Twitter? Can a network not exist for itself, without having to replace another?

(30-11-2017, 06:09 PM)Tmplt Wrote: Does Mastadon not allow anyone on any node to talk to someone on another node? I've stumbled upon Mastadon before, but not yet grasped how the decentralization works.

AFAIK you can follow anyone from any instance, but the administrators have to decide what other instances they will federate with and share a "federated streams" (quasi a global stream of all posts) with.