4 ms·

> into the more convenient walled gardens of Facebook, Twitter and Reddit I don't think "convenience" explains it. Take for example talking with the local gro

> into the more convenient walled gardens of Facebook, Twitter and Reddit I don't think "convenience" explains it. Take for example talking with the local group of emergency food delivery volunteers. I picked that example because if you really need to talk with them, it's not optional. I can't avoid Facebook to do that. It's not a convenience issue. The local group is on Facebook, so I have to use Facebook to achieve my task. There isn't a "less convenient" alternative for me to use, if I need to talk to those people as a group. I could try phoning someone in the group, or emailing. That might get something to happen. But it won't let me achieve the basic task, which is to communicate with a particular group of people, i.e. all of them identified by some common interest. The alternatives will just let me talk to one person who is connected to the group, with a different effect. Well, that's just my side. But can we say the reason the group is on Facebook is due to convenience for the people who created the group? It's arguable, but I think probably not any more. Most likely, the group was formed on Facebook because the people forming it were already on Facebook due to similar network effect pressures for other things they got involved in at some time, and for this new group, if they picked a different platform, a lot of people they want to reach wouldn't have the same level of access to the service they aim to provide. The task for them was to pick a platform lots of local people could realistically join. If they had picked some forum on a private domain, or even a mailing list these days, realistically it wouldn't have been as effective for the service they are aiming to provide locally. So it's network effects over many layers, and I don't think it's accurate to sum that up as convenience any more.

generationP 6y ago
That one's a good example, though I'd still argue that such cases are rare. I'm pretty sure that, at least as a consumer (if not as a volunteer) you could communicate with such a local group through email. Last time I've been asked to join a facebook group, I've said I didn't have an account and everyone switched to a mailing list administered via google in no time. (Though I was not the only one.) Pretty sure a bunch of other alternatives would have been possible if google didn't work nicely. Over the last half-year of online academic events, I've seen at least half a dozen different online services used (Zoom, Zulip, Gather.town, google hangouts, Cisco Webex and probably a bunch I don't remember). Most of us users don't particularly like to, but can (without serious tears) learn a new tool when it comes up and turns out to be more suited. As it comes to reach, don't forget that email has probably the greatest reach of any service around.
- jlokier 6y ago
  > Last time I've been asked to join a facebook group, I've said I didn't have an account and everyone switched to a mailing list administered via google in no time. That's amazing. I've seen similar things the other way around. Someone didn't use Facebook. People didn't switch; they got left out and forgotten. Another one was Google Groups (a type of mailing list). Someone didn't want to use a Google account. They couldn't figure out how to subscribe. Was the group willing to switch to another provider? No of course not. In the end an admin manually subscribed the person with their non-Google address, but if that hadn't been possible, the group would have let them go rather than switch service. I think it depends on how much the group wants to accommodate everyone who wants to be in it, and what the mix of people is. Also whether it depends on additional tools such as Facebook Events. If it's a fun social group that you're interested in joining, where the people don't particularly care who is in it, they're probably not going to change what they do. That's fairly obvious when the group aren't your friends (yet). Less obviously, I've seen it happens among friends too, where someone not on Facebook gradually gets left out and forgotten from things like party invitations. > Over the last half-year of online academic events, I've seen at least half a dozen different online services used (Zoom, Zulip, Gather.town, google hangouts, Cisco Webex and probably a bunch I don't remember). Most of us users don't particularly like to, but can (without serious tears) learn a new tool when it comes up and turns out to be more suited. I've seen the same thing this summer. (Some of those tools have awful data protection issues and permissions to do things they shouldn't on your computer, yet I've installed and used them anyway. When it's a job interview you don't really have a choice.) The above list shows us Facebook doesn't have a monopoly. But I don't count them as great examples of freely leaving behind walled gardens either. It's more like, there are more walled gardens. You don't get a choice which tool to use. You must use whatever tool the group has chosen before you join it, and they are very unlikely to change tool for a new joiner. > As it comes to reach, don't forget that email has probably the greatest reach of any service around. Yes and no. Everyone uses email, but many only use it inside Gmail, which is a bit of a mess if you're subscribed to a bunch of mailing lists, and trying to keep track of events you've been invited to.
  - spurgu 6y ago
joubert 6y ago
It may not be convenient for you, but it was most probably very convenient for them to set up the group on FB, rather than figure out some other solution.
- ricardo81 6y ago
  This, and the fact it costs nothing monetarily.
- jlokier 6y ago
  As I said, that is arguably the reason. But I think we have passed the point where that is actually the reason now. A group like that is looking to achieve a mission-oriented result, not just hang out with like-minded people. So convenience is a factor. But I know a few people who have set up Facebook groups this summer while being annoyed at Facebook, in the correct believe that that's where the people are. It's different for other kinds of communities. E.g. a gaming community tends to set up a Discord group, and a programming language community, well... I'm no longer sure if there's a single "place" for those any more.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
b0rsuk 6y ago
I think the problem is the ability to interoperate. Big walled garden owners have no obvious interest in letting other people link in and OUT of their network. But anything in the network is interoperable by default. I think to fight something like FB the outside world would need to unite over algorithms and data formats. There should be ways trivially import and export data, ways between blogs to communicate when they're not all on wpress or tblr. Otherwise the big guys win with no resistance. Various IM applications can't send messages to each other. You need awkward solutions like Pidgin and one account per network. Finally I have a scientific proof: quake champions grand finals had 2 American players vs 2 Europeans. The Euros had one guy from Netherlands and one from Lithuania. The Euros lost by a big margin but had some scary single combat skills. By comparison, their voice channel was nearly silent. There was noticable delay and hesitation to communicate enemy movement and situation. They had to use English to communicate and for both it was a second language. I don't think either of them was bilingual from the start.

generationP 6y ago

That one's a good example, though I'd still argue that such cases are rare. I'm pretty sure that, at least as a consumer (if not as a volunteer) you could communicate with such a local group through email. Last time I've been asked to join a facebook group, I've said I didn't have an account and everyone switched to a mailing list administered via google in no time. (Though I was not the only one.) Pretty sure a bunch of other alternatives would have been possible if google didn't work nicely. Over the last half-year of online academic events, I've seen at least half a dozen different online services used (Zoom, Zulip, Gather.town, google hangouts, Cisco Webex and probably a bunch I don't remember). Most of us users don't particularly like to, but can (without serious tears) learn a new tool when it comes up and turns out to be more suited. As it comes to reach, don't forget that email has probably the greatest reach of any service around.

jlokier 6y ago
> Last time I've been asked to join a facebook group, I've said I didn't have an account and everyone switched to a mailing list administered via google in no time. That's amazing. I've seen similar things the other way around. Someone didn't use Facebook. People didn't switch; they got left out and forgotten. Another one was Google Groups (a type of mailing list). Someone didn't want to use a Google account. They couldn't figure out how to subscribe. Was the group willing to switch to another provider? No of course not. In the end an admin manually subscribed the person with their non-Google address, but if that hadn't been possible, the group would have let them go rather than switch service. I think it depends on how much the group wants to accommodate everyone who wants to be in it, and what the mix of people is. Also whether it depends on additional tools such as Facebook Events. If it's a fun social group that you're interested in joining, where the people don't particularly care who is in it, they're probably not going to change what they do. That's fairly obvious when the group aren't your friends (yet). Less obviously, I've seen it happens among friends too, where someone not on Facebook gradually gets left out and forgotten from things like party invitations. > Over the last half-year of online academic events, I've seen at least half a dozen different online services used (Zoom, Zulip, Gather.town, google hangouts, Cisco Webex and probably a bunch I don't remember). Most of us users don't particularly like to, but can (without serious tears) learn a new tool when it comes up and turns out to be more suited. I've seen the same thing this summer. (Some of those tools have awful data protection issues and permissions to do things they shouldn't on your computer, yet I've installed and used them anyway. When it's a job interview you don't really have a choice.) The above list shows us Facebook doesn't have a monopoly. But I don't count them as great examples of freely leaving behind walled gardens either. It's more like, there are more walled gardens. You don't get a choice which tool to use. You must use whatever tool the group has chosen before you join it, and they are very unlikely to change tool for a new joiner. > As it comes to reach, don't forget that email has probably the greatest reach of any service around. Yes and no. Everyone uses email, but many only use it inside Gmail, which is a bit of a mess if you're subscribed to a bunch of mailing lists, and trying to keep track of events you've been invited to.
- spurgu 6y ago

joubert 6y ago

It may not be convenient for you, but it was most probably very convenient for them to set up the group on FB, rather than figure out some other solution.

ricardo81 6y ago
This, and the fact it costs nothing monetarily.
jlokier 6y ago
As I said, that is arguably the reason. But I think we have passed the point where that is actually the reason now. A group like that is looking to achieve a mission-oriented result, not just hang out with like-minded people. So convenience is a factor. But I know a few people who have set up Facebook groups this summer while being annoyed at Facebook, in the correct believe that that's where the people are. It's different for other kinds of communities. E.g. a gaming community tends to set up a Discord group, and a programming language community, well... I'm no longer sure if there's a single "place" for those any more.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

b0rsuk 6y ago

I think the problem is the ability to interoperate. Big walled garden owners have no obvious interest in letting other people link in and OUT of their network. But anything in the network is interoperable by default. I think to fight something like FB the outside world would need to unite over algorithms and data formats. There should be ways trivially import and export data, ways between blogs to communicate when they're not all on wpress or tblr. Otherwise the big guys win with no resistance. Various IM applications can't send messages to each other. You need awkward solutions like Pidgin and one account per network. Finally I have a scientific proof: quake champions grand finals had 2 American players vs 2 Europeans. The Euros had one guy from Netherlands and one from Lithuania. The Euros lost by a big margin but had some scary single combat skills. By comparison, their voice channel was nearly silent. There was noticable delay and hesitation to communicate enemy movement and situation. They had to use English to communicate and for both it was a second language. I don't think either of them was bilingual from the start.