4 ms·

Ask HN: Why don't nation-states rollout their own social network?

6 points by Raed667 6y ago

Imagine an open-source, well funded, ad-free, social-media/messaging platform. Why aren't people pushing for this?

gostsamo 6y ago
Many reasons. Network effects, competition from private platforms, and no clear benefit. A national social network would not have the incentives to improve the user experience. Wherever a state has its own national network, it is through a private company and the outside competition had been removed in one way or another: Russia, Iran, China.
- Raed667 6y ago
  The clear benefit is that it removes reliance on 3rd parties for something that has become critical infrastructure to most of the world. They would still compete with private social networks over market-share, and probably can attract top talent like 18F does [0] [0] https://18f.gsa.gov/ https://18f.gsa.gov/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
SubGenius 6y ago
One important reason is the "cool" factor. Anything that's associated with the government is uncool by default. Not to mention everything else - privacy, state surveillance, network effects. If there's free choice, I don't see the general population ever choosing a state-funded network over private ones. One way to do it is for the state to take significant control over an existing private network. Another way to do it for an authoritarian state to block all networks and make it mandatory for citizens to use the state-funded network.
- acct776 6y ago
  They do, but just don't know about it. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo... Similarly, DARPA LifeLog -> FB.
KirillPanov 6y ago
China did. It's called WeChat. Definitely very state-controlled, yes.
tubularhells 6y ago
Because it's a nightmare scenario when it comes to censoring or not censoring extremists.
Lionga 6y ago
The only thing worse than big companies controlling social networks is governments controlling them.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
Network effects are a big problem here. People want to communicate with citizens of other countries. Maybe a federated system could work, with nation states (among other organizations) running instances of it.

6 points by Raed667 6y ago

Imagine an open-source, well funded, ad-free, social-media/messaging platform. Why aren't people pushing for this?

Many reasons. Network effects, competition from private platforms, and no clear benefit. A national social network would not have the incentives to improve the user experience. Wherever a state has its own national network, it is through a private company and the outside competition had been removed in one way or another: Russia, Iran, China.

Raed667 6y ago
The clear benefit is that it removes reliance on 3rd parties for something that has become critical infrastructure to most of the world. They would still compete with private social networks over market-share, and probably can attract top talent like 18F does [0] [0] https://18f.gsa.gov/ https://18f.gsa.gov/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

SubGenius 6y ago

One important reason is the "cool" factor. Anything that's associated with the government is uncool by default. Not to mention everything else - privacy, state surveillance, network effects. If there's free choice, I don't see the general population ever choosing a state-funded network over private ones. One way to do it is for the state to take significant control over an existing private network. Another way to do it for an authoritarian state to block all networks and make it mandatory for citizens to use the state-funded network.

acct776 6y ago
They do, but just don't know about it. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo... Similarly, DARPA LifeLog -> FB.

KirillPanov 6y ago

China did. It's called WeChat. Definitely very state-controlled, yes.

tubularhells 6y ago

Because it's a nightmare scenario when it comes to censoring or not censoring extremists.

Lionga 6y ago

The only thing worse than big companies controlling social networks is governments controlling them.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

Network effects are a big problem here. People want to communicate with citizens of other countries. Maybe a federated system could work, with nation states (among other organizations) running instances of it.