Well, yes. There are only two reasons to use the less popular alternative: ideological preference, which is very rare, or being banned from the #1 service.
> no censorship actually makes these smaller platforms something that people don’t want to use
Invert that sentence and you see why it's happening on the major platforms; deplatforming the deplorables is necessary or they drive normal people and advertisers away.
> Human nature eventually turns deplatforming the deplorables into deplatforming anyone I disagree with.
I agree with this part, but how does this part:
> A decentralized Twitter would need decentralized moderation.
... not just turn into the first part after a time?
I don't think there will ever be a "truly" decentralized twitter that is popular, because it would necessary have to lack any type of non-first-person moderation, and we as a society would probably not want that.
It would attract types of information that most of us would agree that we do not want around (child porn, terrorism planning, etc) and with any sort of traction, the government would step in to shut it down.
And before you say "it can't be shut down" ... anything can be shut down when you control the means of financial transactions, Internet cables, and a police/judicial system to punish those that go too far out of acceptable bounds.
It wouldn't turn into the first part, because "the banned" of some instance could go create their own instance run by their own moderation rules.
> It would attract types of information that most of us would agree that we do not want around (child porn, terrorism planning, etc) and with any sort of traction, the government would step in to shut it down.
If some instance of a federated system is allowing child porn or other criminal content to flourish then they should be shut down. Every instance would need to be held to a baseline standard for dealing with such content.
> If some instance of a federated system is allowing child porn or other criminal content to flourish then they should be shut down. Every instance would need to be held to a baseline standard for dealing with such content.
Yes, moderation. The ideal isn't a system that is un-moderate-able (for the reasons listed, among others), its a system where individuals can choose their moderators based on the differing goals and preferences of the online communities (but within some reasonable bounds/process for limiting rights-violating content like child porn, criminal incitement, etc)
> how does this part not just turn into the first part after a time?
Probably would need a USA govt type setup...a core set of baseline rules (i.e. a constitution), a setup where changes aren't possible unless multiple parties agree (i.e. checks and balances), and a system of voting that doesn't allow a simple majority to make decisions irrespective of minority interests (i.e. an electoral college).
On a scale this large, with so many people performing moderation and guidelines to follow, it most likely just leads to deplatforming the ones that are an unreasonable threat to the comfort of most users and businesses.
> no censorship actually makes these smaller platforms something that people don’t want to use
Invert that sentence and you see why it's happening on the major platforms; deplatforming the deplorables is necessary or they drive normal people and advertisers away.