4 ms·

The point I was trying to make was that the argument that you can simply make your own social network is disingenuous and isn't the solution, the fact that Goog

by ayngg 5y ago

The point I was trying to make was that the argument that you can simply make your own social network is disingenuous and isn't the solution, the fact that Google has continuously failed to do that one thing is a testament to how difficult it is. Then in the case of censorship, you have to deal with being a persona non grata that socially conscious people and institutions won't touch, and that you need to build it in like a month before any political momentum gained dissipates and people move on. Even if you manage to succeed after all that, and get adoption, all you have done is manage to create the same type of platform that censored you in the first place, with the only difference being that it is your hivemind of your own beliefs. If the problem is that people don't know how to talk to each other anymore, and that isn't solved by creating more insular communities.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Creating social networks is easy. Getting Billions in investment to use to lure people into your walled garden so you can gamble on extracting even more billions from them later when they and their nwtwork are locked in is hard. Competing with competitors who have done the above and have near infinite money is hard. There's a very obvious solution to this, and it involves government regulation.
nebula8804 5y ago
>the fact that Google has continuously failed to do that one thing is a testament to how difficult it is Their network had nothing to pull people into. Parler didn't have that problem, in fact, I hear it was doing relatively well until they collapsed due to their own technical incompetence. >Then in the case of censorship, you have to deal with being a persona non grata that socially conscious people and institutions won't touch, and that you need to build it in like a month before any political momentum gained dissipates and people move on. Again it seems like we had evidence of a platform that managed to overcome this. Maybe I could have my memory wrong but Parler started off small, got promoted quietly by right wing people but was somewhat ready to organically grow as discontent grew among right wing people on existing platforms. Maybe it was just a honeypot all along (as some say) but it feels like they could have been an example that disproves your theory. The pieces were definitely there. >Even if you manage to succeed after all that, and get adoption, all you have done is manage to create the same type of platform that censored you in the first place, with the only difference being that it is your hivemind of your own beliefs. I wonder if liberal people went on Parler and confronted right wingers. I know they gladly ban people for doing the same on /r/Conservative but Parler being a "free speech" platform I wonder if they just let people be as they are.

by ayngg 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Creating social networks is easy. Getting Billions in investment to use to lure people into your walled garden so you can gamble on extracting even more billions from them later when they and their nwtwork are locked in is hard. Competing with competitors who have done the above and have near infinite money is hard. There's a very obvious solution to this, and it involves government regulation.

nebula8804 5y ago

>the fact that Google has continuously failed to do that one thing is a testament to how difficult it is Their network had nothing to pull people into. Parler didn't have that problem, in fact, I hear it was doing relatively well until they collapsed due to their own technical incompetence. >Then in the case of censorship, you have to deal with being a persona non grata that socially conscious people and institutions won't touch, and that you need to build it in like a month before any political momentum gained dissipates and people move on. Again it seems like we had evidence of a platform that managed to overcome this. Maybe I could have my memory wrong but Parler started off small, got promoted quietly by right wing people but was somewhat ready to organically grow as discontent grew among right wing people on existing platforms. Maybe it was just a honeypot all along (as some say) but it feels like they could have been an example that disproves your theory. The pieces were definitely there. >Even if you manage to succeed after all that, and get adoption, all you have done is manage to create the same type of platform that censored you in the first place, with the only difference being that it is your hivemind of your own beliefs. I wonder if liberal people went on Parler and confronted right wingers. I know they gladly ban people for doing the same on /r/Conservative but Parler being a "free speech" platform I wonder if they just let people be as they are.