2 ms·

Social media could not have originated anywhere else in the world because the platforms were built on freedoms and opportunities guaranteed by the US. Facebook

Social media could not have originated anywhere else in the world because the platforms were built on freedoms and opportunities guaranteed by the US. Facebook was a way for people who went to Harvard to tell people they went to Harvard without having to actually say it, and for everyone else to be seen know them - Facebook didn't build Harvard, but it is an effect of it. Twitter is an artifact of speech protections and nerds, and now that it has arrived it's trying to cast off the taint of trade to become a walled suburb safe for middle class banalities. Did a few thousand lines of code create billions in value, or did a society with a network effect produce it?

shadowgovt 6y ago
I don't think I disagree with your assessment of Twitter, but I don't see the problem. It happens all the time. The Wild West gave way to towns and suburbs too. Turns out, most people don't want to get shot in the street at high noon, and once the pioneering time is done, that kind of behavior becomes no longer acceptable. Pioneers who have also decided they're done risking having to duel in the hot sun will stick around; pioneers with more risk tolerance (or a thirst for that kind of experience) then often set out for new territory to tame.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  It's funny how extending that analogy begs the question in the small matter of what to do about the natives, which is loosely analogous to the problem of social media, where you colonize and coopt, and then have the issue of what to do with the subjugated people. Not a lot of "right thing," and "good guy," stuff there. The radical monopoly concept captures this dynamic, where products bulldoze culture. Sure, it's progress, but just don't look behind the curtain, and certainly don't be as sanctimonious as the social media platform execs have been.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    The Internet is no more than 50 years old, and Twitter less than 15. There are no 'natives' here; the "land" Twitter occupied (to absolutely torture an analogy) didn't exist until the twitter.com domain was registered and the service was set up. There may be people who helped Twitter gain widespread adoption by their fame who are now feeling taken advantage of by Twitter changing its rules to kick them off their service. Maybe we can bend the analogy far enough to call them 'displaced natives?' Do such people exist though? I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram of QAnon supporters and long-lived Twitter luminaries is two circles. Even if we accept the notion of "Twitter natives," we seem to raise the question of who the "displaced natives" are when regular Twitter users have to put up with this novel conspiracy nonsense.
    - motohagiography 6y ago
      I'd agree we should put this simile out of its misery, but there were internet "natives," before twitter as there were people who live in the society impacted by it. That twitter's participation in the radical monopoly of online reputation can affect the ability of a barista in a flyover state getting a job shows how people are in fact culturally displaced by the technology. QAnon is bonkers, but as an example of a culture being displaced by a technology platform, which I argue is the unavoidable effect of the dominance of said platform, this is good example of the effect of these platforms. They aren't neutral. They're welcome to be against whatever QAnon is for, but I don't buy the story that Twitter is virtuous and worthy for doing it, and they're not the little guy or the people, they are the dominant paradigm.

shadowgovt 6y ago

I don't think I disagree with your assessment of Twitter, but I don't see the problem. It happens all the time. The Wild West gave way to towns and suburbs too. Turns out, most people don't want to get shot in the street at high noon, and once the pioneering time is done, that kind of behavior becomes no longer acceptable. Pioneers who have also decided they're done risking having to duel in the hot sun will stick around; pioneers with more risk tolerance (or a thirst for that kind of experience) then often set out for new territory to tame.

motohagiography 6y ago
It's funny how extending that analogy begs the question in the small matter of what to do about the natives, which is loosely analogous to the problem of social media, where you colonize and coopt, and then have the issue of what to do with the subjugated people. Not a lot of "right thing," and "good guy," stuff there. The radical monopoly concept captures this dynamic, where products bulldoze culture. Sure, it's progress, but just don't look behind the curtain, and certainly don't be as sanctimonious as the social media platform execs have been.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The Internet is no more than 50 years old, and Twitter less than 15. There are no 'natives' here; the "land" Twitter occupied (to absolutely torture an analogy) didn't exist until the twitter.com domain was registered and the service was set up. There may be people who helped Twitter gain widespread adoption by their fame who are now feeling taken advantage of by Twitter changing its rules to kick them off their service. Maybe we can bend the analogy far enough to call them 'displaced natives?' Do such people exist though? I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram of QAnon supporters and long-lived Twitter luminaries is two circles. Even if we accept the notion of "Twitter natives," we seem to raise the question of who the "displaced natives" are when regular Twitter users have to put up with this novel conspiracy nonsense.
  - motohagiography 6y ago
    I'd agree we should put this simile out of its misery, but there were internet "natives," before twitter as there were people who live in the society impacted by it. That twitter's participation in the radical monopoly of online reputation can affect the ability of a barista in a flyover state getting a job shows how people are in fact culturally displaced by the technology. QAnon is bonkers, but as an example of a culture being displaced by a technology platform, which I argue is the unavoidable effect of the dominance of said platform, this is good example of the effect of these platforms. They aren't neutral. They're welcome to be against whatever QAnon is for, but I don't buy the story that Twitter is virtuous and worthy for doing it, and they're not the little guy or the people, they are the dominant paradigm.