3 ms·

As a non-american, we don't really have a choice of using a "native" social network that only has interference from our own government.

fsflover 6y ago
Have a look at Mastodon, PeerTube, PixelFed etc.
fossuser 6y ago
That doesn’t make the two equivalent. Also, hopefully soon you will: https://urbit.org/ https://urbit.org/
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  LOL, if you don't like a social network run by communists or capitalists, try the one run by don't-call-them-fascists.
- bb010g 6y ago
  Digital land ownership! Just what the internet desperately needed. /s
  - fossuser 6y ago
    These knee-jerk responses are lame. - IDs stop the spam problem and give people control over something that keeps its reputation (and they're cheap). - Federated systems normally suck because administering the servers and keeping decentralized versions in sync is hard. Urbit's design fixes this. - Encrypted by default, ability to be as easy to run as FB (eventually, not right now). Peer to peer with the address space and key issues solved from first principles. - Stability over long time horizons due to design (goal being indefinite), the urbit abstraction layer doesn't change and state can always be recomputed - changing pieces are implemented via jets to communicate with whatever underlying OS is doing the normal stuff. It's a clever design and solves a lot of problems with modern computing, people often dismiss it out of hand because Yarvin's politics are stupid (he's no longer involved in the project and hasn't been for some time). Peter Thiel's Trump support was stupid too, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get a lot of other stuff right. https://urbit.org/blog/the-understanding-urbit-podcast/ https://urbit.org/blog/the-understanding-urbit-podcast/
  - h0p3 6y ago
    I will not defend Urbit, though I count myself lucky to read fossuser's posts where I find them. I would argue about digital land ownership and what the internet's users (and possible future users) need though. I'm interested in what the internet is for (like everything else). Would you like to have a serious conversation about that? That does seem a worthy topic, even if Urbit does not address it effectively enough (I'm still not convinced it won't centralize power). I suggest the workers must own the means of production. What do you think?
Siira 6y ago
Still, it’s obvious that the CCP is more competent in executing centralized, longterm plans, and has much less cultural/institutional pressure not to seriously screw over people.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  It also has much less ability to screw over people unless they live in China. China cannot project power the way US can.
  - djhn 6y ago
    Cannot for now.
  - Teever 6y ago
    This isn't totally accurate. You are correct that China cannot project power in the sense that they can't easily invade a country or level shattering economic sanctions but they have proven themselves quite capable of targetting individuals in other nations both online and in the real world. Either way, there is a moral imperative to prevent China from gaining the ability to project power the way the US can. The US being able to project that kind of power is shitty, and the two entities being able to do that is even shittier.
    - jrochkind1 6y ago
      I appreciate that you recognize the US being able to do it is shitty. I wonder how many non-Americans think two entities being able to do it is better than one, because at least they can counter-balance each other. Not just with force; I was recently thinking about how the US during the cold war tried to be "nice" to the "third world" to keep them out of the "sphere of influence" of the Soviet Union. Currently China is trying to project it's "soft power" that way too to get less developed countries into it's patronage, but the US isn't really doing that at the moment (see for instance approaches to distributing covid vaccine...). I (who is a usa citizen) personally am not really sure which is preferable, only one super-power, or two. Either way the world is in for a rough ride.
chmod775 6y ago
Many countries have their own domestic social networks with varying popularity - some are way more active than FB, others are more or less dead. Russia is an example of the former. Other countries don't use social media much, because they are culturally just not as interested in it. There's a few countries where you can't really avoid being on any social network and that social network is not domestic, but those you can probably count on one hand. Off the top of my head I can just come up with Australia, India and Indonesia.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  I wonder how many of those are in fact infiltrated by the NSA, the Chinese equivalent, or both though. :(
- absove 6y ago
  Curious in which category you think the majority of European countries fall into? The domestic social network one, or the don't use social media one? Because as far as I can tell US social networks are the norm there and there very much is a social expectation that you are reachable on them, even if it's not government mandated.
  - MomoXenosaga 6y ago
    Europe has been deeply colonised by US tech companies. I do not agree with Chinese stance on democracy or human rights but I admire their willingness to play by their own rules. Not opening their markets and rolling out the red carpet for Silicon valley was wise.
  - chmod775 6y ago
    > there very much is a social expectation that you are reachable on them I disagree. People will (somewhat) expect you to have a WhatsApp in many European countries, but hardly anyone will expect you to use Facebook. At least in my circles Facebook is a wasteland. Many people haven't even posted anything in years, and if I was trying to reach anyone via Facebook I'd settle in for a long wait - until they check it in a month or two. You won't notice it if you just open Facebook, because Facebook will fill your feeds with people who are active, but when I go through my list of contacts there it's obvious less than one in five are still actively using it. I don't claim total knowledge of the situation everywhere, but I do keep in contact with people of a lot of different countries.

fsflover 6y ago

Have a look at Mastodon, PeerTube, PixelFed etc.

fossuser 6y ago

That doesn’t make the two equivalent. Also, hopefully soon you will: https://urbit.org/ https://urbit.org/

earthboundkid 6y ago
LOL, if you don't like a social network run by communists or capitalists, try the one run by don't-call-them-fascists.
bb010g 6y ago
Digital land ownership! Just what the internet desperately needed. /s
- fossuser 6y ago
  These knee-jerk responses are lame. - IDs stop the spam problem and give people control over something that keeps its reputation (and they're cheap). - Federated systems normally suck because administering the servers and keeping decentralized versions in sync is hard. Urbit's design fixes this. - Encrypted by default, ability to be as easy to run as FB (eventually, not right now). Peer to peer with the address space and key issues solved from first principles. - Stability over long time horizons due to design (goal being indefinite), the urbit abstraction layer doesn't change and state can always be recomputed - changing pieces are implemented via jets to communicate with whatever underlying OS is doing the normal stuff. It's a clever design and solves a lot of problems with modern computing, people often dismiss it out of hand because Yarvin's politics are stupid (he's no longer involved in the project and hasn't been for some time). Peter Thiel's Trump support was stupid too, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get a lot of other stuff right. https://urbit.org/blog/the-understanding-urbit-podcast/ https://urbit.org/blog/the-understanding-urbit-podcast/
- h0p3 6y ago
  I will not defend Urbit, though I count myself lucky to read fossuser's posts where I find them. I would argue about digital land ownership and what the internet's users (and possible future users) need though. I'm interested in what the internet is for (like everything else). Would you like to have a serious conversation about that? That does seem a worthy topic, even if Urbit does not address it effectively enough (I'm still not convinced it won't centralize power). I suggest the workers must own the means of production. What do you think?

Siira 6y ago

Still, it’s obvious that the CCP is more competent in executing centralized, longterm plans, and has much less cultural/institutional pressure not to seriously screw over people.

smnrchrds 6y ago
It also has much less ability to screw over people unless they live in China. China cannot project power the way US can.
- djhn 6y ago
  Cannot for now.
- Teever 6y ago
  This isn't totally accurate. You are correct that China cannot project power in the sense that they can't easily invade a country or level shattering economic sanctions but they have proven themselves quite capable of targetting individuals in other nations both online and in the real world. Either way, there is a moral imperative to prevent China from gaining the ability to project power the way the US can. The US being able to project that kind of power is shitty, and the two entities being able to do that is even shittier.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    I appreciate that you recognize the US being able to do it is shitty. I wonder how many non-Americans think two entities being able to do it is better than one, because at least they can counter-balance each other. Not just with force; I was recently thinking about how the US during the cold war tried to be "nice" to the "third world" to keep them out of the "sphere of influence" of the Soviet Union. Currently China is trying to project it's "soft power" that way too to get less developed countries into it's patronage, but the US isn't really doing that at the moment (see for instance approaches to distributing covid vaccine...). I (who is a usa citizen) personally am not really sure which is preferable, only one super-power, or two. Either way the world is in for a rough ride.

chmod775 6y ago

Many countries have their own domestic social networks with varying popularity - some are way more active than FB, others are more or less dead. Russia is an example of the former. Other countries don't use social media much, because they are culturally just not as interested in it. There's a few countries where you can't really avoid being on any social network and that social network is not domestic, but those you can probably count on one hand. Off the top of my head I can just come up with Australia, India and Indonesia.

jrochkind1 6y ago
I wonder how many of those are in fact infiltrated by the NSA, the Chinese equivalent, or both though. :(
absove 6y ago
Curious in which category you think the majority of European countries fall into? The domestic social network one, or the don't use social media one? Because as far as I can tell US social networks are the norm there and there very much is a social expectation that you are reachable on them, even if it's not government mandated.
- MomoXenosaga 6y ago
  Europe has been deeply colonised by US tech companies. I do not agree with Chinese stance on democracy or human rights but I admire their willingness to play by their own rules. Not opening their markets and rolling out the red carpet for Silicon valley was wise.
- chmod775 6y ago
  > there very much is a social expectation that you are reachable on them I disagree. People will (somewhat) expect you to have a WhatsApp in many European countries, but hardly anyone will expect you to use Facebook. At least in my circles Facebook is a wasteland. Many people haven't even posted anything in years, and if I was trying to reach anyone via Facebook I'd settle in for a long wait - until they check it in a month or two. You won't notice it if you just open Facebook, because Facebook will fill your feeds with people who are active, but when I go through my list of contacts there it's obvious less than one in five are still actively using it. I don't claim total knowledge of the situation everywhere, but I do keep in contact with people of a lot of different countries.