3 ms·

>Alright, let's say you get appointed at Twitter to clean up this mess. Announce a sale of intellectual and physical assets and close down. I would realize the

by pgrote 6y ago

>Alright, let's say you get appointed at Twitter to clean up this mess. Announce a sale of intellectual and physical assets and close down. I would realize the company is a negative drain on society.

koonsolo 6y ago
So basically some other platform will take over?
- _qulr 6y ago
  No, break up all the tech giants, and prevent monopolistic platforms from ever arising. A platform so gigantic that it's impossible for humans to intelligently manage it should simply not exist.
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    You do realize the network effect right? You mean that a bunch of your friends is on one platform, and a bunch of others on another platform, and your family on still another one. But then you have to be on all platforms, so this means everyone else also needs to be on all platforms. So how exactly do you see this working when reality pushes everyone to use a single platform? because you know, it's a social network.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      1) My family is on Facebook. I am not. ;-) It's already the case that Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for example have different "crowds", though there's some overlap. 2) Somehow humanity survived without these networks pre-2007ish. 3) I have no problem with the existence of many smaller special-interest social networks. Those are manageable, and we had them before the rise of the BigCos. The problem is with the existence of a few all-encompassing, world-consuming, general-purpose social networks. They have proven to be completely unmanageable and toxic. "Abolish Gmail", for instance, doesn't mean abolish email providers. Not at all. And it doesn't mean that "the next gmail" will replace it. Healthy competition is good, unhealthy monopolies are bad.
      - koonsolo 6y ago
        Your point 1 contradicts your monopoly theory. Your point 2 says you really want to join the Amish. You mean smaller platforms like Parler or 4chan?
        _qulr 6y ago
        > Your point 1 contradicts your monopoly theory. What is my "monopoly theory"? I clarified what I meant: "A platform so gigantic that it's impossible for humans to intelligently manage it". We don't really have a good term for a corporation that has undue, oversized market power. Pedants like to argue "so-and-so is not literally a monopoly!" but this is just wordplay and doesn't really address the serious social issues involved. > Your point 2 says you really want to join the Amish. Maybe! > You mean smaller platforms like Parler or 4chan? I mean smaller platforms. It would be ridiculous to suggest that your cherrypicked examples are representative. You can make anything look bad by cherrypicking.

by pgrote 6y ago

>Alright, let's say you get appointed at Twitter to clean up this mess. Announce a sale of intellectual and physical assets and close down. I would realize the company is a negative drain on society.

koonsolo 6y ago

So basically some other platform will take over?

_qulr 6y ago
No, break up all the tech giants, and prevent monopolistic platforms from ever arising. A platform so gigantic that it's impossible for humans to intelligently manage it should simply not exist.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  You do realize the network effect right? You mean that a bunch of your friends is on one platform, and a bunch of others on another platform, and your family on still another one. But then you have to be on all platforms, so this means everyone else also needs to be on all platforms. So how exactly do you see this working when reality pushes everyone to use a single platform? because you know, it's a social network.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    1) My family is on Facebook. I am not. ;-) It's already the case that Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for example have different "crowds", though there's some overlap. 2) Somehow humanity survived without these networks pre-2007ish. 3) I have no problem with the existence of many smaller special-interest social networks. Those are manageable, and we had them before the rise of the BigCos. The problem is with the existence of a few all-encompassing, world-consuming, general-purpose social networks. They have proven to be completely unmanageable and toxic. "Abolish Gmail", for instance, doesn't mean abolish email providers. Not at all. And it doesn't mean that "the next gmail" will replace it. Healthy competition is good, unhealthy monopolies are bad.
    - koonsolo 6y ago
      Your point 1 contradicts your monopoly theory. Your point 2 says you really want to join the Amish. You mean smaller platforms like Parler or 4chan?
      - _qulr 6y ago
        > Your point 1 contradicts your monopoly theory. What is my "monopoly theory"? I clarified what I meant: "A platform so gigantic that it's impossible for humans to intelligently manage it". We don't really have a good term for a corporation that has undue, oversized market power. Pedants like to argue "so-and-so is not literally a monopoly!" but this is just wordplay and doesn't really address the serious social issues involved. > Your point 2 says you really want to join the Amish. Maybe! > You mean smaller platforms like Parler or 4chan? I mean smaller platforms. It would be ridiculous to suggest that your cherrypicked examples are representative. You can make anything look bad by cherrypicking.