6 ms·

Here is one possible outcome: Elon splits up Twitter into two parts: 1. An infrastructure element that creates an open API/protocol for sharing/pushing message

Here is one possible outcome: Elon splits up Twitter into two parts: 1. An infrastructure element that creates an open API/protocol for sharing/pushing messages, contacts and media between content/social media platforms. The basic idea is to have a generic interface similar to email. 2. A content company that provides aggregation, search, moderation (possibly based on user preference) and possibly editorial features, as well as a front-end for users. Basically what gmail is to email. As soon as Republicans gain control of congress (and possibly the presidency), he starts lobbying to make it mandatory for all social media platforms to allow their users to connect through the API/protocol under (1) with a generalized account, similar (or identical, at least in form) to email addresses. This would kill the monopolies of Facebook, Insta, Tik-Tok, etc, by allowing a user to use only one of them to connect with user on all of them, similar to how they can use an email client of choice. Twitter could then charge some small fee for communicating over this protocol, or could simply sell the protocol company to the government, who could make the protocol publicly owned, like email/smtp. Would this make him a huge profit? Not likely. At best he would get his investment back, perhaps. But it could help break down some echo chambers and counteract some of the crazy polarization that's currently going on in the US. And if I'm reading Musk correctly, profit is no longer his primary motivation, if it ever was. Rather, it seems that he has some Messiah complex where he wants to be seen as the guy that saves the world. Whether you see that as a sign of genuine altruism, a severe case of Narcissism or just a sign that he's really an insecure nerd that seeks social validation, is up to you.

jmyeet 4y ago
First, I don't see this kind of split ever working. How do you monetize it? Email is federated and has huge problems because of it. Moving a centralized service to federated would be a massive destruction of value. Let's not forget Elon is on the hook for $44 billion so I expect him to protect his investment first and foremost. Why do you think one of his first actions was to apease advertisers? In politics corporate interests transcend politics and cross party lines. There is no shot any Congress would destroy the value of all these American companies that way. > But it could help break down some echo chambers ... Nobody wants this. The idea that any of this is about free speech is a complete myth. The idea that an "echo chamber" is even a thing is problematic. People are going to engage in content they like and not engage with content they don't like. It affects what websites you go to, what TV you watch, what channels you subscribe to and so on. The post on HN yesterday from the ex-CEO of Reddit was great in this regard. He put forth a cogent argument that none of this is about content. It's simply a user behaviour problem. So when Kanye goes on Twitter and launches into an anti-semitic screed he gets banned. Not because of the content per se but because he's annoying and he's making the experiene worse for everyone else. Whenever conservatives (in particular) talk about "free speech", they really mean "hate speech" and wanting to avoid getting silenced even when everyone else just wants them to stop being anti-semitic, homophobic, transphobic, racist or whatever.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > First, I don't see this kind of split ever working. How do you monetize it? Moving a centralized service to federated would be a massive destruction of value. Maybe Elon can afford to take a loss to achieve this? Or maybe the platforms ARE able to find ways to split add revenue (and other revenues) in ways that don't really destroy value. > In politics corporate interests transcend politics and cross party lines. How much financial support is Meta and Tik-Tok giving to Republicans? In fact, I think it's primarily Meta that has a lot to lose from this, out of the American companies. Alphabet/Youtube may actually benefit, as they are specialists when it comes to video, and if Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram are forced to permit sharing of Youtube videos through their platforms, they may gain traffic at the cost of native video alternatives. > Nobody wants this. Well I do, for one. > The idea that any of this is about free speech is a complete myth. I'm pretty sure quite a few people care about free speech, and even more are worried about American polarization. Even many non-Americans, like me. > The idea that an "echo chamber" is even a thing is problematic. That's an interesting point of view. You're not only saying that they don't exist, but actually that the mere IDEA is problematic? Isn't 4chan an echo chamber? > People are going to engage in content they like and not engage with content they don't like. I agree. People should be able to filter content they find problematic, just like we do with email spam or how we can restrict porn in browsers, etc. > So when Kanye goes on Twitter and launches into an anti-semitic screed he gets banned. I watched Kanye's appearance on Lex Fridman's podcast/youtube a few days back, and it was mostly sad, tbh. Lex, being Jewish himself, pushed back pretty hard when Kanye started his Anti Semitism. But Kanye WAS allowed to speak, and neither Spotify or YouTube have take it down. > It's simply a user behaviour problem. On Twitter, maybe that's what it looks like. But if you sit through the podcast, maybe your conclusion is that this is more of a symptom that Kanye is going through a very rough time than some intent to be evil. Obviously he DOES have racist thoughts when it comes to Jews (or, depending on your definition of Racist, they would be if Blacks had as much power as Jews, or if he were white). But then again, the basic conspiratorial pattern he's using doesn't seem very different from how BLM talks about "white" people. One could argue that white people have some obligation to avoid Anti Semitism due to the Holocaust. But the left seems to be quite accepting with Anti Semitism that comes from Palestinians, since they're "punching up". Aren't African Americans also "punching up" in this case? Anyway, Kanye is a lot more than his prejudice against Jews. It IS interesting to hear his story and point of view, even if it did make me quite sad. So, in conclusion. Let's say social media gets a protocol similar to smtp, they would be able to add optional moderation/spam filters against content like this. But I think users should be able to check their "junk folder" and whitelist content they don't think should be block listed, as long as the content is not illegal.

jmyeet 4y ago

First, I don't see this kind of split ever working. How do you monetize it? Email is federated and has huge problems because of it. Moving a centralized service to federated would be a massive destruction of value. Let's not forget Elon is on the hook for $44 billion so I expect him to protect his investment first and foremost. Why do you think one of his first actions was to apease advertisers? In politics corporate interests transcend politics and cross party lines. There is no shot any Congress would destroy the value of all these American companies that way. > But it could help break down some echo chambers ... Nobody wants this. The idea that any of this is about free speech is a complete myth. The idea that an "echo chamber" is even a thing is problematic. People are going to engage in content they like and not engage with content they don't like. It affects what websites you go to, what TV you watch, what channels you subscribe to and so on. The post on HN yesterday from the ex-CEO of Reddit was great in this regard. He put forth a cogent argument that none of this is about content. It's simply a user behaviour problem. So when Kanye goes on Twitter and launches into an anti-semitic screed he gets banned. Not because of the content per se but because he's annoying and he's making the experiene worse for everyone else. Whenever conservatives (in particular) talk about "free speech", they really mean "hate speech" and wanting to avoid getting silenced even when everyone else just wants them to stop being anti-semitic, homophobic, transphobic, racist or whatever.

trashtester 4y ago
> First, I don't see this kind of split ever working. How do you monetize it? Moving a centralized service to federated would be a massive destruction of value. Maybe Elon can afford to take a loss to achieve this? Or maybe the platforms ARE able to find ways to split add revenue (and other revenues) in ways that don't really destroy value. > In politics corporate interests transcend politics and cross party lines. How much financial support is Meta and Tik-Tok giving to Republicans? In fact, I think it's primarily Meta that has a lot to lose from this, out of the American companies. Alphabet/Youtube may actually benefit, as they are specialists when it comes to video, and if Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram are forced to permit sharing of Youtube videos through their platforms, they may gain traffic at the cost of native video alternatives. > Nobody wants this. Well I do, for one. > The idea that any of this is about free speech is a complete myth. I'm pretty sure quite a few people care about free speech, and even more are worried about American polarization. Even many non-Americans, like me. > The idea that an "echo chamber" is even a thing is problematic. That's an interesting point of view. You're not only saying that they don't exist, but actually that the mere IDEA is problematic? Isn't 4chan an echo chamber? > People are going to engage in content they like and not engage with content they don't like. I agree. People should be able to filter content they find problematic, just like we do with email spam or how we can restrict porn in browsers, etc. > So when Kanye goes on Twitter and launches into an anti-semitic screed he gets banned. I watched Kanye's appearance on Lex Fridman's podcast/youtube a few days back, and it was mostly sad, tbh. Lex, being Jewish himself, pushed back pretty hard when Kanye started his Anti Semitism. But Kanye WAS allowed to speak, and neither Spotify or YouTube have take it down. > It's simply a user behaviour problem. On Twitter, maybe that's what it looks like. But if you sit through the podcast, maybe your conclusion is that this is more of a symptom that Kanye is going through a very rough time than some intent to be evil. Obviously he DOES have racist thoughts when it comes to Jews (or, depending on your definition of Racist, they would be if Blacks had as much power as Jews, or if he were white). But then again, the basic conspiratorial pattern he's using doesn't seem very different from how BLM talks about "white" people. One could argue that white people have some obligation to avoid Anti Semitism due to the Holocaust. But the left seems to be quite accepting with Anti Semitism that comes from Palestinians, since they're "punching up". Aren't African Americans also "punching up" in this case? Anyway, Kanye is a lot more than his prejudice against Jews. It IS interesting to hear his story and point of view, even if it did make me quite sad. So, in conclusion. Let's say social media gets a protocol similar to smtp, they would be able to add optional moderation/spam filters against content like this. But I think users should be able to check their "junk folder" and whitelist content they don't think should be block listed, as long as the content is not illegal.