3 ms·
Incredibly reductionist argument. Success is impossible to define therefore all social networks are failures? There are clearly properties of a social network
by wunderland 3y ago
Incredibly reductionist argument. Success is impossible to define therefore all social networks are failures?
There are clearly properties of a social network that users would like to see: ease of use, reach, quality of content and moderation while also allowing for openness and free speech. Working toward a future where something like this exists at scale is worthwhile and a workable-enough definition of success.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lapcat 3y ago> Incredibly reductionist argument. Success is impossible to define therefore all social networks are failures? Incredibly reductionist interpretation of the article.
- kelnos 3y agoThat's not what the article is saying at all. The author is saying that any social network can be a success as long as it meets whatever metrics they care about. A tiny private forum that only serves two people is successful if those two people only care about talking with each other. Zuck will consider Threads a success if it gets to 1 billion users; that's still "only" an eighth of the world population, but that doesn't matter because the people running it get to define what success means to them.