5 ms·

The messy future of social media

75 points by jacobobryant 5y ago

nkozyra 5y ago
I think the ultimate problem is people go where people are going - niche networks are great for people who just want to communicate with a few people (it's why IRC is still popular today), but it's never going to break through without some massive lure.
- jacobobryant 5y ago
  Maybe, though I think a gradual switch through email might be feasible (see my other comment[1]). Also, if new systems provide a long-form-content-centric experience, that would IMO be a pretty big lure for a good chunk of people. Readwise's original post[2] is pretty compelling in that regard. That wouldn't be enough to get a majority of social media users to switch--but even if new systems are limited to the population of people who read articles instead of just tweets, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29546280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29546280 [2] https://blog.readwise.io/readwise-reading-app/ https://blog.readwise.io/readwise-reading-app/
- IndexPointer 5y ago
  Adversarial interoperability is the only solution. Make the new networks compatible with the current ones, even without their authorization.
smoldesu 5y ago
I really hope the future of social media looks like this; I love Mastodon, and as a user, it feels fantastic to be "in the drivers seat" of my social media again. However, it's frankly foolish to think it's going to take over. I know I can't convince any of my friends to use Mastodon, or anything ActivityPub-related. It's not because it's too complicated (though for some reason people still think that's what's holding it back), and it's not because it needs more development time, it's because nobody uses it. People are stuck on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram because they're designed to retain you, no matter the cost. Every second you spend browsing is designed to lock you in further, generating more ad revenue. The social structure of these platforms is meticulously designed to make people feel like they've got more stake in the platform; you follow celebrities to stay 'in' on the gossip, you follow smart people in some faux investment of intellectual capital, and you follow successful people because you think that basking in the starlight will impart something valuable to you. Of course, none of that happens. At the end of the day, it's just people scrolling through brief text/video blurbs where they retain little to nothing from their interaction, just adding more lubrication for the money-making machine to chew through. Oh, and if any of these smaller, federated platforms do gain traction, they're going to have to fight off billions of dollars in vested interest to keep them out of the game. The big influencers will stay in the pockets of the big players because they treat them well. The big players will ramp up their marketing campaign, acquire newer platforms or create their own spinoffs that diametrically oppose a free internet. There's always a bigger content silo to be made, and they're the ones with the resources to do it.
- leksak 5y ago
  I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with social media. Mastodon too. I feel as if we've moved from long form content to essentially posting single words almost. Articles -> blogs -> microblogs -> tweets. I skipped Instagram and tiktok outright but I'd put those next on that "developmental" path. With regards to social media I feel as if we are living through the proverbial lead in gasoline phase of this particular story. Still derive some value from forums though.
  - Terry_Roll 5y ago
    > I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with social media. You need cheering up, so I'll direct you to the @RyanAir twitter account. Try not to wet yourself! ;-)
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Oh, for sure. To me, Mastodon scratches a certain shitposting itch that I can't quite get anywhere else, and it's frankly mostly for my benefit more than it is for others. My "feed" is mostly comprised of some bots that post useful/interesting/funny stuff, as well as a good smattering of tangentially interesting human accounts. It's almost completely garbage, but it's garbage that I have control over. I remember enjoying Twitter for a few months before it went sterile and corporate, but Mastodon sort of picks up where it left off. It's not a never-ending cesspit of "suggested" content, advertisements and politically charged conversation. It's just goofy and occasionally informative, and something I can put down after 5 minutes of use like it's a holistic digital snack.
- riffic 5y ago
  I really don't think its your own friends who need to be convinced to use Mastodon or anything else ActivityPub. Who needs to be convinced are the content creators. What we really could use are content management systems that can publish directly to the open web and then be interacted with by compatible systems. CNN.com and House.gov, for example, could be host systems that provide content out to the wider Fedi.
  - 5y ago
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Side note: "Matter" is Google's IoT platform. Careful with the trademarks there, folks.
- alvarlagerlof 5y ago
  It's not really owned by one company is it?
Havoc 5y ago
> The winning approach is to have lightweight protocols which cover only the essentials—just enough so that we can keep reader apps and networks interchangeable. Indeed. Unfortunately google and friends disagree. Interchangeable and light is the opposite of walled garden, captured audience and tracking/ads everywhere
- jacobobryant 5y ago
  Fortunately, the whole point of the plan is to improve on social media without needing cooperation from google and friends--the "pragmatic decentralized web," if you will.
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  So did standard oil. And AT&T. It is matter of political will mostly
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  A lot of technically sound solutions in this space simply lack the addictive quality to draw in the crowds. Instagram and similarly popular networks, for all their flaws, are designed from the ground up to exploit human nature. If you sit on any form of public transport, you can see this in action. People obsessively checking whatever networks they are on. Anything lacking that addictive quality is not going to come close to disrupting the established players. That takes more than people geeking out over protocols or raging against ads and powerlessly waving their fists at the big FANG bullies. Money for example. It takes a lot of cash to get anything decent off the ground. People working on some low level protocols in their spare time doesn't get the job done. Whenever money is involved, power follows. And people with power will raise barriers to protect and nurture that power. That's how walled gardens are created. The counter move here is to get organized with a foundation and make sure that gets funded properly. That has worked extremely well for a range of OSS projects. The Linux Foundation, the Apache Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation, WikiMedia, etc. The list is quite long. But fundamentally any time investor cash gets involved, walled gardens are a foregone conclusion.

75 points by jacobobryant 5y ago

I think the ultimate problem is people go where people are going - niche networks are great for people who just want to communicate with a few people (it's why IRC is still popular today), but it's never going to break through without some massive lure.

jacobobryant 5y ago
Maybe, though I think a gradual switch through email might be feasible (see my other comment[1]). Also, if new systems provide a long-form-content-centric experience, that would IMO be a pretty big lure for a good chunk of people. Readwise's original post[2] is pretty compelling in that regard. That wouldn't be enough to get a majority of social media users to switch--but even if new systems are limited to the population of people who read articles instead of just tweets, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29546280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29546280 [2] https://blog.readwise.io/readwise-reading-app/ https://blog.readwise.io/readwise-reading-app/
IndexPointer 5y ago
Adversarial interoperability is the only solution. Make the new networks compatible with the current ones, even without their authorization.

smoldesu 5y ago

I really hope the future of social media looks like this; I love Mastodon, and as a user, it feels fantastic to be "in the drivers seat" of my social media again. However, it's frankly foolish to think it's going to take over. I know I can't convince any of my friends to use Mastodon, or anything ActivityPub-related. It's not because it's too complicated (though for some reason people still think that's what's holding it back), and it's not because it needs more development time, it's because nobody uses it. People are stuck on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram because they're designed to retain you, no matter the cost. Every second you spend browsing is designed to lock you in further, generating more ad revenue. The social structure of these platforms is meticulously designed to make people feel like they've got more stake in the platform; you follow celebrities to stay 'in' on the gossip, you follow smart people in some faux investment of intellectual capital, and you follow successful people because you think that basking in the starlight will impart something valuable to you. Of course, none of that happens. At the end of the day, it's just people scrolling through brief text/video blurbs where they retain little to nothing from their interaction, just adding more lubrication for the money-making machine to chew through. Oh, and if any of these smaller, federated platforms do gain traction, they're going to have to fight off billions of dollars in vested interest to keep them out of the game. The big influencers will stay in the pockets of the big players because they treat them well. The big players will ramp up their marketing campaign, acquire newer platforms or create their own spinoffs that diametrically oppose a free internet. There's always a bigger content silo to be made, and they're the ones with the resources to do it.

leksak 5y ago
I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with social media. Mastodon too. I feel as if we've moved from long form content to essentially posting single words almost. Articles -> blogs -> microblogs -> tweets. I skipped Instagram and tiktok outright but I'd put those next on that "developmental" path. With regards to social media I feel as if we are living through the proverbial lead in gasoline phase of this particular story. Still derive some value from forums though.
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  > I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with social media. You need cheering up, so I'll direct you to the @RyanAir twitter account. Try not to wet yourself! ;-)
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Oh, for sure. To me, Mastodon scratches a certain shitposting itch that I can't quite get anywhere else, and it's frankly mostly for my benefit more than it is for others. My "feed" is mostly comprised of some bots that post useful/interesting/funny stuff, as well as a good smattering of tangentially interesting human accounts. It's almost completely garbage, but it's garbage that I have control over. I remember enjoying Twitter for a few months before it went sterile and corporate, but Mastodon sort of picks up where it left off. It's not a never-ending cesspit of "suggested" content, advertisements and politically charged conversation. It's just goofy and occasionally informative, and something I can put down after 5 minutes of use like it's a holistic digital snack.
riffic 5y ago
I really don't think its your own friends who need to be convinced to use Mastodon or anything else ActivityPub. Who needs to be convinced are the content creators. What we really could use are content management systems that can publish directly to the open web and then be interacted with by compatible systems. CNN.com and House.gov, for example, could be host systems that provide content out to the wider Fedi.
- 5y ago

SavantIdiot 5y ago

Side note: "Matter" is Google's IoT platform. Careful with the trademarks there, folks.

alvarlagerlof 5y ago
It's not really owned by one company is it?

Havoc 5y ago

> The winning approach is to have lightweight protocols which cover only the essentials—just enough so that we can keep reader apps and networks interchangeable. Indeed. Unfortunately google and friends disagree. Interchangeable and light is the opposite of walled garden, captured audience and tracking/ads everywhere

jacobobryant 5y ago
Fortunately, the whole point of the plan is to improve on social media without needing cooperation from google and friends--the "pragmatic decentralized web," if you will.
ReptileMan 5y ago
So did standard oil. And AT&T. It is matter of political will mostly
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jillesvangurp 5y ago
A lot of technically sound solutions in this space simply lack the addictive quality to draw in the crowds. Instagram and similarly popular networks, for all their flaws, are designed from the ground up to exploit human nature. If you sit on any form of public transport, you can see this in action. People obsessively checking whatever networks they are on. Anything lacking that addictive quality is not going to come close to disrupting the established players. That takes more than people geeking out over protocols or raging against ads and powerlessly waving their fists at the big FANG bullies. Money for example. It takes a lot of cash to get anything decent off the ground. People working on some low level protocols in their spare time doesn't get the job done. Whenever money is involved, power follows. And people with power will raise barriers to protect and nurture that power. That's how walled gardens are created. The counter move here is to get organized with a foundation and make sure that gets funded properly. That has worked extremely well for a range of OSS projects. The Linux Foundation, the Apache Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation, WikiMedia, etc. The list is quite long. But fundamentally any time investor cash gets involved, walled gardens are a foregone conclusion.