4 ms·

I'd say the fundamental problem with social media is that current incentives strongly encourage companies to make bad social networks. Cutting advertising and

I'd say the fundamental problem with social media is that current incentives strongly encourage companies to make bad social networks. Cutting advertising and mass spying out of the picture could be enough to all but completely solve the problem. But there may be other ways to fix it. Maybe significantly increasing the liability and risk platforms are exposed to for widely-posted/shared content.

rektide 5y ago
Rather than try to corner company's into regulating & providing speech through checks & balances on their profitability, I'd really like to see online speech be something that users are broadly capable of moderating independently. Most moderation & curation services & systems should be opt in & separate. And ideally should function across sites, allow us to comment & reveal problematic users that work across sites (or to ignore those who are un-invested, low quality sock puppets). Trying to change what these companys are, what they do: it seems like a truly sisyphean struggle. I don't see any hope of coercing them into becoming better. To me, the onus to be a responsible, healthy, positive society lies on the members of society; we lack the technical starting place to begin to experience these platforms in our own manner, lack the ability to start to self govern. But the conventional attitude right now seems to be that heightened centralization, amplified stronger louder more-active regulation & clamping down, that, as you propose, bigger sticks is the only win. To me, the bigger stick option is mad, is rampant destruction; we cannot place all the responsibilities of society upon an entity. Society has to have it's own stake in here, we can't just pass the buck & demand someone else fix the social quagmires. But society must be given a chance to defend itself. Something the currently freedomless, constrained, walled gardens quite explicitly forbid.
prawn 5y ago
I suspect advertising might actually sometimes be a moderating effect in that sites/networks occasionally clean up their act to retain major advertising partners. Not great on the whole, but might be one meagre positive.

rektide 5y ago

Rather than try to corner company's into regulating & providing speech through checks & balances on their profitability, I'd really like to see online speech be something that users are broadly capable of moderating independently. Most moderation & curation services & systems should be opt in & separate. And ideally should function across sites, allow us to comment & reveal problematic users that work across sites (or to ignore those who are un-invested, low quality sock puppets). Trying to change what these companys are, what they do: it seems like a truly sisyphean struggle. I don't see any hope of coercing them into becoming better. To me, the onus to be a responsible, healthy, positive society lies on the members of society; we lack the technical starting place to begin to experience these platforms in our own manner, lack the ability to start to self govern. But the conventional attitude right now seems to be that heightened centralization, amplified stronger louder more-active regulation & clamping down, that, as you propose, bigger sticks is the only win. To me, the bigger stick option is mad, is rampant destruction; we cannot place all the responsibilities of society upon an entity. Society has to have it's own stake in here, we can't just pass the buck & demand someone else fix the social quagmires. But society must be given a chance to defend itself. Something the currently freedomless, constrained, walled gardens quite explicitly forbid.

prawn 5y ago

I suspect advertising might actually sometimes be a moderating effect in that sites/networks occasionally clean up their act to retain major advertising partners. Not great on the whole, but might be one meagre positive.