Mastodon’s Peer-to-Peer Boosting System: A Better Boost for Medium?
Why not let everyone boost stories directly to their followers?
Before the boost on Medium was even a thought in anyone’s mind, there was another boost.
I’m talking about Mastodon: the open source, decentralized, microblogging social media platform, where boosting content is equally open and decentralized.
When Medium officially embraced Mastodon and made its Mastodon server part of our membership perks earlier this year, I figured that the upcoming boost program would be modeled after Mastodon’s boost.
This is the word that Mastodon uses for its sharing function, after all! But to my surprise, I was wrong.
And now, that surprise has turned to disappointment, because I think we’re really missing out by not having Mastodon-style boosting here.
For the record, I’m not opposed to Medium’s boost
I have issues with the earnings multiplier, but overall, the current boost program helps generate a baseline of high quality, broad appeal articles for subscribers, especially the casual readers.
This helps retain and grow subscriptions, and these subscriptions are what drive Medium’s remarkable revenue-sharing partner program — which I very much appreciate, given the vast pitfalls of ad-driven platforms like user addiction and consumerism.
However…
At the end of the day, Medium’s boost places great influence in the hands of relatively few people.
Even if Medium plans to eventually expand the number of boost nominators to more than a thousand, can that really compare to the tens of thousands of writers on here and the untold number of niches, styles, and perspectives?
Plus, no matter how many nominators are sourcing stories, it’s ultimately up to Medium’s in-house curators to approve them for the boost.
Mastodon’s boost couldn’t be more different
On Mastodon, everyone has the ability to boost.
The technical term is peer-to-peer boosting, and it’s similar to internal sharing functions on other social media platforms, with a few key differences. For one thing, Mastodon’s main feed is chronological, and it’s populated with posts according to the people and hashtags you follow — not algorithms.
When you decide to boost someone else’s post, it shows up at the top of the feed for everyone who follows you.
And when one of your followers boosts the same post you did? It’s shared with all of their followers. And so on!
It’s very dynamic and grassroots, and each individual has the ability to decide what they think should be boosted to their following.
Plus, boosted posts have the booster’s name attached at the top, so you always know exactly who is sharing the post.
I’ve read some great stories on Medium that were chosen by unnamed boost nominators. But if one of my favorite writers on here recommends someone else’s story?
I’m way more likely to read it.
Mastodon’s boost also revitalizes older content
This is another thing that’s special about Mastodon.
Algorithms tend to prioritize new content, but on Mastodon, what is popular depends on real people. This means that sometimes older posts can get a boost out of nowhere and catch fire, racking up more and more boosts, and connecting with bigger and bigger audiences.
I have experience with this!
In early March, I published a post on Mastodon linking to one of my Medium stories, which got decent engagement at the time.
In April, however, it unexpectedly got boosted again and then took off, getting dozens more boosts and likes.
Can you imagine how incredibly useful that would be on Medium?
As a writer, I know I’m not alone when I say that there are several stories that I worked on for days, writing and researching, only for hardly anyone to ever read them.
And as a reader, I’m not exaggerating when I say that it drives me crazy to stumble across an excellent story on Medium with barely any claps or comments, with no good way to share it directly with my followers here.
Mastodon’s boost should be an inspiration, but not a blueprint
I’d love to see Mastodon’s peer-to-peer boosting on Medium, but I can see how a complete copy/paste of their boosting system could cause some problems.
For one, if we could boost stories to our followers all the time without restrictions, there’s a strong possibility that type of boosting could become a common courtesy, like giving fifty claps.
So, some limits on the number of peer-to-peer boosts per month and/or per author would probably be a good idea.
I also think having the option to include a very short endorsement — like you find on the back of a book — would be really beneficial.
It’s so helpful to have context about who is recommending a story, but it’s even better if they can also tell you why!
And finally, I don’t think that peer-to-peer boosting needs to replace the current boost program
They can coexist peacefully! Honestly, I think they would have a lot of synergy.
For instance, a flurry of peer-to-peer boosts could signal to curators that a story might be a good candidate for a big boost.
On the other hand, little boosts can extend the earning potential of a story that was capital-B boosted a long time ago, which the algorithm has since forgotten.
Call them the megaboost and the miniboost, if you want!
What do you think?
I don’t know about you, but I just want to be able to get recommendations from the people whose opinions I value most on Medium: the readers and writers I follow.
And when I find a story that I think is exceptionally good, I want an easy way to share it with the readers who follow me, too.
Do you agree?
Thanks for reading! If you’d like to check out some of the stories I wish I could boost to my followers, take a look at my Recommended Reads list.






