I've spent more than 7 years in Mastodon, and in my experience, new users always come in with a Twitter mindset, then getting a cultural shock because they come to Mastodon expecting a Twitter experience and end up finding something strange and bizarre.
To soften the blow, I'd like to explain the cultural differences between Mastodon and Twitter.
What Twitter was:
- You could follow microcelebrities (or "influencers") to read interesting things
- You didn't reach people unless you got lots of likes quickly, so it became a popularity contest
- The algorithm decides what you read and how you engage, even if it's negative content or something bad for your mental health.
- Toxic people drew others to quote posting, so it became a yelling competition. You didn't build community, you built followers by standing on a platform and holding a megaphone.
- Unpopular users just yell to the void.
What Mastodon is:
- A bunch of communities of people with diverse interests and real lives.
- Mastodon servers (instances) are careful of who they federate with. Some servers just moderate poorly and there are too many assholes.
- There are microcelebrities, but they're NOT looking to be popular. They just post the things they do; they're popular because their lives / hobbies are interesting.
- In Mastodon, you reach people who are actually interested in your stuff. You don't need to game an algorithm. There is no algorithm, people ARE the algorithm.
- If you don't want to engage with someone, you can block and report. Unlike Twitter, Mastodon admins do take reports seriously (unless it's one of the big instances; then good fucking luck). Reporting is encouraged on Mastodon, it keeps the community clean.
- Because admins often maintain the server using their own money, it's in their best interest that the community is healthy. (Unless they're assholes, but their instances get blocked quickly)
- There are no quote posts. You can paste a link to the other person's post, but it is discouraged because we know where that leads.
Longer explanation:
Mastodon has an entirely different culture compared to Twitter. Mastodon was founded and populated by people who believed Twitter was too toxic and corporate-driven. Mastodon is full of gays, transgender folks, sex workers, artists, furries, autistic people, etc.
These people were driven out of the big platforms (Facebook, Twitter) by hate and discrimination. These people have experienced sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, body shaming, etc. in their lives. It follows that the majority of Mastodon is left-leaning, anti-conservative, communist and anti-corporate.
Furthermore: Because it started (or quickly became) as a sort of safe haven for queer folks, they were more open to sincere posting. They post their problems, the discrimination they've experienced; their body dysphoria; depression; homophobia; transphobia and racism. And they give each other support, even economic. In my timeline I see posts asking for emergency money more than once per day.
If you wonder why this doesn't appear on Twitter, it's because the Algorithm filters them out. The public, the customers don't like hearing about people asking for money not to get evicted. They don't like to hear how people were harassed the other day by some karen who believes they're a man in disguise.
But Mastodon is different. People talk about their daily lives because they know their followers will receive 100% of their posts. This is how communities are built.
Mastodon is not, and never aimed to be a Twitter replacement. It was meant to be something different; a place where you could form communities and build connections without Big Brother examining you or deciding how you should behave online.
So the next time you look for "interesting people to follow", it could be possible that you're entering Mastodon with a Twitter mindset. No Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore.
Start following people you think are interesting in YOUR instance. Then start seeing their boosts and follow people you think are cool. Little by little, expand your network, prune your follows and block / mute people you think are obnoxious, and keep building and shaping your network like a beautiful bonsai tree.
The time you invest on building a network from scratch is worth it: You will meet many interesting people, and you will meet new friends; real friends, not just a series of followers whom you have to entertain.
I see it in a similar way to how having multiple 3rd-party reddit apps is valid.
If you want to develop a 3rd-party reddit app, the aggregation and structure of the way content is delivered is already determined by reddit. In principle the task is to build a GUI around that.
Fediverse content could be threadiverse-style, or microblogging-style, or both. So to develop an app for this, first you'd need to figure out those aggregation and structure prerequisites. Lemmy, Kbin and Mastodon are like different apps for fediverse content which each take a different approach to this. But since it's FOSS, there is no 1st / 3rd party, they're all made by one collaborative project.
If I'm not wrong, generally those that prefer threadiverse style will likely end up migrating to Lemmy or Kbin organically, users that prefer microblogging to Kbin or Mastodon, and users that engage in both might use Kbin for a unified presentation. Or, they might prefer discrete presentations which each specialise in the content type, and use both Lemmy and Mastodon. I understand this is a very loose set of overlapping parameters, but the clarity of purpose here is determined by the individual user's chosen method(s) of interaction with fediverse content. This is definitely a more abstract notion for a user to think about than simply preferring a given visual style like with a reddit app.
Wherever users lie on the spectrum of use cases might not be clear enough to make generalisations like "lemmy is better than kbin for reddit users" accurately, but I think it's clear to the users individually either a) the type of things they want to post/see or b) the existing forums e.g. reddit, twitter that they want to replace. So while it's a more individual purpose, I don't think it's lacking in clarity to those individuals.
The culture that exists within the communities that use these pieces of software isn't determined by the software, it's determined by the instances and the users. But the different approaches to aggregation/structure might lend themselves better to certain kinds of community in a similarly organic way, which would also contribute to shaping which users are on which platform.