5 ms·

> The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced

> The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced. There is no "cutting down to size", these sites are popular as the function of individual choices, short of authoritarianism you can't dictate which sites people decide to use.

visualradio 5y ago
Eh, governments could probably take a supply-side approach and throw money at new ARPAnet protocols for developing federated content publishing networks to grow competing networked application ecosystems without resorting to heavy handed authoritarianism.
- root_axis 5y ago
  Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. The web is already federated, websites are the "nodes", these big websites are just very popular nodes, if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network.
  - visualradio 5y ago
    > Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. HTTP is a request-response rather than content broadcast or publish-subscribe protocol. Presumably you could develop a publish-subscribe protocol with low-latency encryption support embedded in protocol layer similar to QUIC. > if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network. So suppose the Department of Energy provides a public cloud which people can get a network address to hold files for them similar to how they can get a Post Office box number at the post office. Except when you put a file in your own PO box the PO will make free copies of the file for others on your behalf which are subscribed to your PO box without destroying the original copy. This would really just create a lower-level protocol or new number system for publish-subscribe content. It would compete with the other ARPAnet protocols such as TCP.
  - blooalien 5y ago
    https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/an-introduction-to-solid-tim-berners-lees-new-re-decentralized-web-25d6b78c523b/ https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/an-introduction-to-solid-t... Tim Berners-Lee might get it right this next time around?
buran77 5y ago
> you can't dictate which sites people decide to use You can invest in education and empower people to make informed choices about the source or value of the information. This is an investment governments go out of their way to avoid because it just so happens the same lack of education that gets people hooked up on low quality content is what makes them easily manipulated by the political class.
- root_axis 5y ago
  I don't see a problem with educational outreach, but what kind of education do you think the public needs?
  - DoubleDerper 5y ago
    From an early age more public investment in STEM, financial literacy, empathic education.
    - chacha2 5y ago
      Pre-school STEM is your plan to get people off twitter?
orhmeh09 5y ago
*Are* these sites popular as functions of individual choices? It’s been pretty well established that governments and regulators in the U.S. overlooked the actions of or actively supported these companies from the start.
- root_axis 5y ago
  Sure they are. The popularity of one website does not diminish the availability of another website. The popularity of YouTube didn't prevent tiktok from also becoming popular. Using one website does not make it more difficult to use another website which is why literally everybody on the internet uses multiple websites. Not everyone uses FB, twitter, or reddit, others use some combination of them, some use all of them, others none of them, this is entirely the result of free choices made by individuals.
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    tiktok and youtube are not synonymous in functionality... It is extremely hard to have a 2nd youtube, reddit or facebook... because of the network effects
    - root_axis 5y ago
      > tiktok and youtube are not synonymous in functionality This is a subjective distinction, but setting aside subjectivity for the sake of argument, it's a user-driven video sharing website, it's pretty similar to YouTube in many ways, but the fact that it is not synonymous is exactly my point - TikTok created something that differentiated itself from YouTube and so people flocked to it, and the fact that YouTube was already popular didn't diminish TikTok's accessibility nor did TikTok's explosion in popularity come at the cost of YouTube's popularity. TikTok created something attractive and people made individual choices to use it.
      - foolinaround 5y ago
        I agree on the distinction, but the main point is that tiktok and youtube cannot be compared for the core functionality. a better comparison is the conservative leaning 'rumble' - without google's massive support, it stands no chance of winning against youtube. -- parler was the alternative to twitter and fb, and see how it was cut down for no real reason, though at the time, the entire media made it seem as if it was the most logical thing to do. later one finds that there is more extremist stuff in fb and twitter.. also, it was interesting how all the biggies - Amazon, Google, Apple, Visa all joined hands to squelch Parler an opponent of their enemy (for ad dollars) Twitter... speaking loosely, this is quite an example of a cartel.
smsm42 5y ago
Parler users would like to disagree. So do users of other platforms who can not use mainstream payment systems to pay for their services, and can not install the apps using Google or Apple app stores. I think by now one has to be extremely naive and uninformed to claim that only individual user choices are the factor in whether or not a social network can prosper.
- root_axis 5y ago
  > Parler users would like to disagree. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/parler/id1402727988 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/parler/id1402727988 People bring up Parler as if the political context of the very recent (at the time) attack on the U.S. capitol had no bearing on how things transpired. > I think by now one has to be extremely naive and uninformed to claim that only individual user choices are the factor in whether or not a social network can prosper. I'll have to replay that "naive and uninformed" label back at you if you seriously believe that sites like Parler are unpopular because of big tech collusion rather than the type of content cultivated by such sites.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    Yes, I seriously believe that Parler was shut down because of of big tech collusion and not because the users voluntarily abandoned it, disgusted by the content cultivated there. I can tell you why I believe it - because Parler was shut down by the collusion of big tech companies, while many many users (millions) were willing to go there and tolerate the type of content that you obviously don't like. It's something that is called "fact". After Parler was able to overcome the hostile actions of the big tech, they still have millions of users. You may not be one of them, and that's ok - you are free to use whatever networks you like, and if the content on Parler disgusts you, you're free to avoid it and join the network you like. What you're not entitled to do is to invent your own facts. BTW, another fact - most of the planning for US Capitol protest that is known about actually happened on Facebook, and livestreaming the even also happened on Facebook and Youtube. Of course, nobody shut them down for that.
    - 5y ago

visualradio 5y ago

Eh, governments could probably take a supply-side approach and throw money at new ARPAnet protocols for developing federated content publishing networks to grow competing networked application ecosystems without resorting to heavy handed authoritarianism.

root_axis 5y ago
Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. The web is already federated, websites are the "nodes", these big websites are just very popular nodes, if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network.
- visualradio 5y ago
  > Another layer of federated content publishing doesn't solve any problems. HTTP is a request-response rather than content broadcast or publish-subscribe protocol. Presumably you could develop a publish-subscribe protocol with low-latency encryption support embedded in protocol layer similar to QUIC. > if fediverse style apps take off the problem would just move to the most popular nodes on that network. So suppose the Department of Energy provides a public cloud which people can get a network address to hold files for them similar to how they can get a Post Office box number at the post office. Except when you put a file in your own PO box the PO will make free copies of the file for others on your behalf which are subscribed to your PO box without destroying the original copy. This would really just create a lower-level protocol or new number system for publish-subscribe content. It would compete with the other ARPAnet protocols such as TCP.
- blooalien 5y ago
  https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/an-introduction-to-solid-tim-berners-lees-new-re-decentralized-web-25d6b78c523b/ https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/an-introduction-to-solid-t... Tim Berners-Lee might get it right this next time around?

buran77 5y ago

> you can't dictate which sites people decide to use You can invest in education and empower people to make informed choices about the source or value of the information. This is an investment governments go out of their way to avoid because it just so happens the same lack of education that gets people hooked up on low quality content is what makes them easily manipulated by the political class.

root_axis 5y ago
I don't see a problem with educational outreach, but what kind of education do you think the public needs?
- DoubleDerper 5y ago
  From an early age more public investment in STEM, financial literacy, empathic education.
  - chacha2 5y ago
    Pre-school STEM is your plan to get people off twitter?

orhmeh09 5y ago

*Are* these sites popular as functions of individual choices? It’s been pretty well established that governments and regulators in the U.S. overlooked the actions of or actively supported these companies from the start.

root_axis 5y ago
Sure they are. The popularity of one website does not diminish the availability of another website. The popularity of YouTube didn't prevent tiktok from also becoming popular. Using one website does not make it more difficult to use another website which is why literally everybody on the internet uses multiple websites. Not everyone uses FB, twitter, or reddit, others use some combination of them, some use all of them, others none of them, this is entirely the result of free choices made by individuals.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  tiktok and youtube are not synonymous in functionality... It is extremely hard to have a 2nd youtube, reddit or facebook... because of the network effects
  - root_axis 5y ago
    > tiktok and youtube are not synonymous in functionality This is a subjective distinction, but setting aside subjectivity for the sake of argument, it's a user-driven video sharing website, it's pretty similar to YouTube in many ways, but the fact that it is not synonymous is exactly my point - TikTok created something that differentiated itself from YouTube and so people flocked to it, and the fact that YouTube was already popular didn't diminish TikTok's accessibility nor did TikTok's explosion in popularity come at the cost of YouTube's popularity. TikTok created something attractive and people made individual choices to use it.
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      I agree on the distinction, but the main point is that tiktok and youtube cannot be compared for the core functionality. a better comparison is the conservative leaning 'rumble' - without google's massive support, it stands no chance of winning against youtube. -- parler was the alternative to twitter and fb, and see how it was cut down for no real reason, though at the time, the entire media made it seem as if it was the most logical thing to do. later one finds that there is more extremist stuff in fb and twitter.. also, it was interesting how all the biggies - Amazon, Google, Apple, Visa all joined hands to squelch Parler an opponent of their enemy (for ad dollars) Twitter... speaking loosely, this is quite an example of a cartel.

smsm42 5y ago

Parler users would like to disagree. So do users of other platforms who can not use mainstream payment systems to pay for their services, and can not install the apps using Google or Apple app stores. I think by now one has to be extremely naive and uninformed to claim that only individual user choices are the factor in whether or not a social network can prosper.

root_axis 5y ago
> Parler users would like to disagree. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/parler/id1402727988 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/parler/id1402727988 People bring up Parler as if the political context of the very recent (at the time) attack on the U.S. capitol had no bearing on how things transpired. > I think by now one has to be extremely naive and uninformed to claim that only individual user choices are the factor in whether or not a social network can prosper. I'll have to replay that "naive and uninformed" label back at you if you seriously believe that sites like Parler are unpopular because of big tech collusion rather than the type of content cultivated by such sites.
- smsm42 5y ago
  Yes, I seriously believe that Parler was shut down because of of big tech collusion and not because the users voluntarily abandoned it, disgusted by the content cultivated there. I can tell you why I believe it - because Parler was shut down by the collusion of big tech companies, while many many users (millions) were willing to go there and tolerate the type of content that you obviously don't like. It's something that is called "fact". After Parler was able to overcome the hostile actions of the big tech, they still have millions of users. You may not be one of them, and that's ok - you are free to use whatever networks you like, and if the content on Parler disgusts you, you're free to avoid it and join the network you like. What you're not entitled to do is to invent your own facts. BTW, another fact - most of the planning for US Capitol protest that is known about actually happened on Facebook, and livestreaming the even also happened on Facebook and Youtube. Of course, nobody shut them down for that.
  - 5y ago