7 ms·
Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?
by ve55 6y ago
Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?
- flattone 6y agoI suppose at MZ's level what billions think of you means nothing.
- ianbicking 6y agoWhat would decentralization accomplish?
- zadler 6y agoCensorship resistance, potentially
- Zenst 6y agoThat is a double edged coin. Thinking of fake news, spam, scams etc.
- nyolfen 6y agomicrocommunities and web of trust. the things you mentioned are not eliminable but i trust my peers more than a multinational with conflicting values.
- duxup 6y agoThat's just echo chambers...
- y2bd 6y agoHow is that different from any follow-based network?
- duxup 6y agoMost follow based network at least injects some sort of content that isn't 'followed'.
- EGreg 6y agoYou can always join such a network if you like. The current networks herd you into echo chambers and show you more outrage so you’ll engage more as they chase advertising dollars in a race to the bottom.
- momokoko 6y agoYou are literally describing the breeding grounds of radicalizing young men on the internet. Microcommunities, if anything, have proven themselves incredibly dangerous to human life.
- danbolt 6y agoI think you're right that some microcommunities aren't exactly the greatest for your mental and social wellbeing. It's not hard to find websites today that showcase and bring out the worst in people. At the same time, I'd be tempted to suggest that the sort of thing isn't much different than someone starting to "run with the wrong crowd" in high school. Or, I think socializing on the internet reflects our humanity in ways that socializing in real life does too.
- atoav 6y ago
- 29athrowaway 6y agoMore like localized censorship. Censorship will always exist.
- xwdv 6y agoAre you sure about that? Being Facebook also comes with billions of dollars.
- puranjay 6y agoAnd the incredible power owning the world's largest microphone buys.
- ashishb 6y agoWe need to think federation here. Some websites have more racist content. Some have more porn. We can choose to visit a website which sorry suits our sensibilities. That's not the case with a social network. They have to apply one set of policies to all. The problem though is that there is no business model that supports federated social networks.
- foota 6y agoThat doesn't help much that the problem here is people objecting to the content hosted, regardless of whether they view it or not.
- dmix 6y agoNot having centralized admins that are actively opposed to your politics or your sense of humour like Reddit would still greatly help. Or not having an admin at all just voting and community level mods. Twitter used to be always about who you choose to follow is what you see, or what tags you click on, it was opt-in and it was great. The popular feed wasn't your feed by default (via other peoples friends of friends which you have zero control over nor blue checkmarks being heavily promoted - which are usually the most tribalistic and FUDy).
- ashishb 6y agoSome people hate CNN. Some hate Fox News. Neither website can be removed from the Internet. Of course, both set of individuals can petition Facebook to ban those links.
- tedunangst 6y agoCan't wait until crossing a border requires showing them that your firewall rules block all the federated servers they disapprove of.
- gazzini 6y agoThis is a really interesting argument, and I’d like to understand it more clearly. For the sake of honing in on this: Many subreddits have different sets of rules & restrictions. If these options were significantly expanded, could that ever meet the requirements? Another interesting niche example is stackexchange.com, which isn’t a social network in the traditional sense (yet), but it has many different communities with different rules where a single identity, but variable set of privileges, follow you around. Could these evolve into what you consider federated social networks, or are there more strict separation requirements (such as different login / identity providers among sub-communities)? [edit: typo]
- ntsplnkv2 6y agoIt must be so terrible, maybe they'd have to wipe your tears with your billions of dollars.
- EGreg 6y agoYes! This is exactly the problem with centralization. On a federated maps product, some communities can label Nagorno Karabakh one way, others another. Unlike Google. https://qbix.com/blog/2019/03/08/how-qbix-platform-can-change-the-world/ https://qbix.com/blog/2019/03/08/how-qbix-platform-can-chang...
- refurb 6y agoI agree. You may not agree with Zuckerberg's position of not censoring content (beyond the obscene), but it's probably the smartest position for the business. As soon as you start saying "well, we'll censor stuff that isn't accurate", you've opened a Pandora's box of every single interest group hammering you on every single decision and in the end everyone thinks you're screwing them over.
- deanCommie 6y agoFacebook has access to the biggest and most ubiquitous information delivery platform IN THE WORLD today. To let them off the hook for the role they had in helping letting the idea of ABSOLUTE TRUTH degrade, as well as the role they COULD have in helping fix it, is not thinking big enough. Facebook could choose to be an active participant in the quest to reinforce the value of reality-orientated information exchange. They choose not to because it doesn't help their metrics. That doesn't make them evil, that makes them a logical participant in capitalism. The onus is on the rest of us to make them.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoWould you support this even if Facebook suppressed some ideas you believe in, or are you working under the assumption that Facebook will always agree with you about what's true?
- deanCommie 6y agoI...don't know how to respond to that. Truth is truth. Yes, there is right wing fascist parties that are trying to nullify the meaning of the word, and introduce subjectivity where there should not be any, sowing doubt on the very idea of Reality. But this is not the new normal for society or humanity. I refuse to believe that, or we're truly doomed. This is a temporary hurdle made by desperate people trying to hold on to a world they are being left behind in. If Facebook doesn't take a stance on facts, lies, reality, and fiction. Then they are by definition agreeing with those that say all these things are subjective, and are therefore themselves unimpeachable and above repercussions. Not taking a stand is taking a stand in this case.
- heavyset_go 6y agoYou aren't going to find a technical solution to court orders.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dgellow 6y ago> Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one? I feel that question is too often discussed without enough context. To be able to find a solution, we should first agree on what is the problem. So, what's your problem statement?