4 ms·

While I definitely do sympathize, these might be alarm bells telling that we've given too much to these faceless corps. Maybe it's time to reimagine content sh

While I definitely do sympathize, these might be alarm bells telling that we've given too much to these faceless corps. Maybe it's time to reimagine content sharing that has full uncensorable control of the creator and reach of today's centralized platforms, with a fair way to monetize.

etherael 4y ago
This is exactly what lbry/odysee is.
zaphar 4y ago
Trade one extreme with it's failure modes for another extreme with different failure modes. Not sure that counts as progress.
- can16358p 4y ago
  What do you think the failure modes for the alternative are?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adamrezich 4y ago
no man think of all the Wrong Kinds of Speech that such a thing would facilitate the mass transmission of!! that's not what the Internet is for! the Internet is only for safe, advertiser-friendly walled gardens of corporate-moderated content, algorithmically distributed to users based on their best interests (even if they don't know it yet)—nothing more—and it has always been this way, of course
Zak 4y ago
What do you think that looks like? Youtube was initially successful because hosting video for playback in a browser was difficult and expensive. It's not difficult anymore, but it's still expensive at scale. It was not profitable and only managed to keep operating because Google bought it early on and absorbed losses for a decade. Youtube only became profitable when it started running lots of ads and using a recommendation engine that's prone to amplify misinformation and political extremism. That's not the only thing the recommendation engine does of course, but everyone running a massively popular service with user-generated content and a recommendation engine seems to have the same issues. Of course, advertisers are nervous about having their ads run next to controversial content, so these kinds of services tend to remove first and ask questions later. Those are the reach and monetization bits. What's a better way to solve those problems than ads and a recommendation algorithm?
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
Bolkan 4y ago
That's 4chan.
- notforsaleldn 4y ago
  [flagged]
gaius_baltar 4y ago
I'm becoming more and more critical of these gigantic platforms. Perhaps we (for a random definition of "we") should have legislation requiring these companies to provide warranty for the services they provide, under a common set of minimal and inalienable rights, when the service is "free" but the company has revenue from ads and such. Having warranty for the services require some level of tech support, of course. Will this scale for a Google-sized company? Probably not, but that's their problem. It would even be better, for us as a society, if this makes these companies unsustainable; I can only dream of they being replaced by thousands of smaller ones for which the approach is sustainable.

etherael 4y ago

This is exactly what lbry/odysee is.

zaphar 4y ago

Trade one extreme with it's failure modes for another extreme with different failure modes. Not sure that counts as progress.

can16358p 4y ago
What do you think the failure modes for the alternative are?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

adamrezich 4y ago

no man think of all the Wrong Kinds of Speech that such a thing would facilitate the mass transmission of!! that's not what the Internet is for! the Internet is only for safe, advertiser-friendly walled gardens of corporate-moderated content, algorithmically distributed to users based on their best interests (even if they don't know it yet)—nothing more—and it has always been this way, of course

Zak 4y ago

What do you think that looks like? Youtube was initially successful because hosting video for playback in a browser was difficult and expensive. It's not difficult anymore, but it's still expensive at scale. It was not profitable and only managed to keep operating because Google bought it early on and absorbed losses for a decade. Youtube only became profitable when it started running lots of ads and using a recommendation engine that's prone to amplify misinformation and political extremism. That's not the only thing the recommendation engine does of course, but everyone running a massively popular service with user-generated content and a recommendation engine seems to have the same issues. Of course, advertisers are nervous about having their ads run next to controversial content, so these kinds of services tend to remove first and ask questions later. Those are the reach and monetization bits. What's a better way to solve those problems than ads and a recommendation algorithm?

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

Bolkan 4y ago

That's 4chan.

notforsaleldn 4y ago
[flagged]

gaius_baltar 4y ago

I'm becoming more and more critical of these gigantic platforms. Perhaps we (for a random definition of "we") should have legislation requiring these companies to provide warranty for the services they provide, under a common set of minimal and inalienable rights, when the service is "free" but the company has revenue from ads and such. Having warranty for the services require some level of tech support, of course. Will this scale for a Google-sized company? Probably not, but that's their problem. It would even be better, for us as a society, if this makes these companies unsustainable; I can only dream of they being replaced by thousands of smaller ones for which the approach is sustainable.