Yes, and Mastodon, and and (I know there's many more). Thing is, it will probably fracture at some point (look at how Mastodon split over (AFAIK?) Hentai), and then the mainstream is still Twitter/Facebook/YouTube etc. The alternative media needs to have enough legal and non-lunatic content. If say 99% of Bitcoin transactions are proven crime related (drugs, murder, etc) that's an argument to make Bitcoin illegal. But nobody's gonna argue to make roads or postal service illegal because these are also used for legal purposes. Massively, if I might add. In this context I remember Freenet, some Java P2P network and predecessor of Tor. One of the problems on it was that certain nefarious (disgusting) content was popular on it, and one of the main devs in an interview suggested that people should popularize other content instead. But therein lies the conundrum: such can be abused to obfuscate the bad actor/content. Its the same reason the US Navy wanted Tor to be used by others than them alone. What use is a piece of anonymity software if its obvious only one government department in the world uses it? None. Meanwhile, if you can roll X out for say a target group you find interesting, perhaps its easier to monitor. If you want to infiltrate say BLM for an information position in closed communities, and BLM is mostly on Mastodon (I don't know; its hypothetical), then at least the protocol is going to be obvious. Media like Twitter/Facebook/YouTube allow one to blend in, and have a large potential group of viewers. My point being, mainstream/status quo nor alternative/exclusive is a panacea. Each has their pros and cons, depending on where your focus/morals lie.