Nothing prevents them from setting up a friendlier instance (domain name) where they only allow registration for verified members, block and defederate liberally.
So what prevents them from actually setting up friendlier instances is that people simply do not go there.
(The rest have single-digit thousands to be fair: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/directory)
That's really the key point: with Mastodon, you control your own space. So in theory you can create your own little bubble with your own rules.
Which is basically what Truth Social did, since it is also built on Mastodon, but they stripped out all the federation code—so it's just a walled garden that happens to use Mastodon's codebase. Maybe for the best.
Mastodon at least it not owned by any large US corporation, and therefore not subject to corporate whims of their leadership.
> while the ones who shouldn’t be there will stick around and end up with an even bigger, uncontested audience.
Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance.
> Yes, and that's how it falls into complete irrelevance.
I think you underestimate the influence the european politicians have on the amount of people using X and the fact that they can also influence the american audience this way.
I worry, however, how politicians might perceive public opinion if they account the response on Twitter as reality.
It’s not toxic to be like “everyone should have the same rights, invading Greenland is stupid, let’s all have healthcare.”
We can compare toxicities accurately, and comparing the cesspool of “thought” that is X to…anything else? Is like comparing Polonium 210 to Tylenol. Sure, they’re both toxic, technically, but there is some critical distinction between them, right?
The best option would be to have a separate platform for the european heads of state to communicate with people that is not as partisan and crazy as X, BlueSky or Mastodon.
edit: not to mention that with how things are set up now, the people who actually add value will probably leave X, while the ones who shouldn’t be there will stick around and end up with an even bigger, uncontested audience. And their arguments of the opposite don't convince me. If all dissenting voices leave, the platform does not necessarily disappear, instead, it often calcifies into a radicalization machine. They are arguing for moral victory but a strategic defeat.
edit2: my biggest problem is not that they use X, but that they often use it exclusively, so your choice is to either follow them there or get what they are saying via a third party (a newspaper reprinting X or something).