5 ms·

This push for everyone to have their own empty social network site (not distinguishable from 1 billion other sites on the same code) is very strange.

righthand 3y ago
Why? Isn’t that essentially what self hosted wordpress is? Aren’t people running the same OSes everywhere? You don’t have to visit them all and they all don’t need to be unique if they’re different sites. The push for people to all be on the same platform and a single code base run by a marketing company is the strange thing.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  Most people interested in using social networks have no interest in running a WordPress site or care/know about the details of an OS outside of the fact that it allows them to access the internet. Self-hosting a social network brings them no benefit.
  - righthand 3y ago
    Okay then they can use a non-self hosted service then. Doesn’t mean that getting people off singularly owned and operated marketing platforms is a bad idea or a strange concept.
jddj 3y ago
The alternative is more strange. In Europe not too long ago my partner and I called in to an undergroundish bar of the kind we used to frequent when we were younger for a beer on the way back from dinner. It's the sort of place where people write on the walls, and I couldn't help but notice how many instagram tags there were. Properly articulating why I felt like it was a shame that the one thing a lot of these young adults wanted to share was a link to their little ad-gated corner of a big tech company's garden would probably need more space than I've got here. There's even an "opt in to tracking or pay" ultimatum on Instagram there.
unethical_ban 3y ago
That's literally what the web was born to be, or at least the dream in the 90s. Not for profit, enabling learning and communication (and commerce, but not of human data). It was about expression, experimentation, freedom. You thinking individuals hosting their own site is weird, is weird to me.
apantel 3y ago
Everyone wants to be an owner.
- izzydata 3y ago
  I think more specifically a lot of people don't want to be owned or controlled.
  - apantel 3y ago
    Yes, because that goes against the desire to own and be in control (of self, of things, of time, of outcomes, of others, etc).
    - immibis 3y ago
      Framing everything as a matter of ownership is a weird part of a capitalist dystopia. Why does it have to be "they own you or you own you"? Why can't the concept of "owning you" just not exist?
egypturnash 3y ago
It's nice to have a space to talk to your friends, and be the one setting the rules about what kind of behavior isn't okay in this space, instead of that space being owned by a corporation whose rules are largely designed to maximize their profits. Before the modern social media era there were billions of PHPBB sites that were largely differentiated only by the crowds who used them, and the choices the moderators made. It's really nice to have that back with some federation added in.

righthand 3y ago

Why? Isn’t that essentially what self hosted wordpress is? Aren’t people running the same OSes everywhere? You don’t have to visit them all and they all don’t need to be unique if they’re different sites. The push for people to all be on the same platform and a single code base run by a marketing company is the strange thing.

xboxnolifes 3y ago
Most people interested in using social networks have no interest in running a WordPress site or care/know about the details of an OS outside of the fact that it allows them to access the internet. Self-hosting a social network brings them no benefit.
- righthand 3y ago
  Okay then they can use a non-self hosted service then. Doesn’t mean that getting people off singularly owned and operated marketing platforms is a bad idea or a strange concept.

jddj 3y ago

The alternative is more strange. In Europe not too long ago my partner and I called in to an undergroundish bar of the kind we used to frequent when we were younger for a beer on the way back from dinner. It's the sort of place where people write on the walls, and I couldn't help but notice how many instagram tags there were. Properly articulating why I felt like it was a shame that the one thing a lot of these young adults wanted to share was a link to their little ad-gated corner of a big tech company's garden would probably need more space than I've got here. There's even an "opt in to tracking or pay" ultimatum on Instagram there.

unethical_ban 3y ago

That's literally what the web was born to be, or at least the dream in the 90s. Not for profit, enabling learning and communication (and commerce, but not of human data). It was about expression, experimentation, freedom. You thinking individuals hosting their own site is weird, is weird to me.

apantel 3y ago

Everyone wants to be an owner.

izzydata 3y ago
I think more specifically a lot of people don't want to be owned or controlled.
- apantel 3y ago
  Yes, because that goes against the desire to own and be in control (of self, of things, of time, of outcomes, of others, etc).
  - immibis 3y ago
    Framing everything as a matter of ownership is a weird part of a capitalist dystopia. Why does it have to be "they own you or you own you"? Why can't the concept of "owning you" just not exist?

egypturnash 3y ago

It's nice to have a space to talk to your friends, and be the one setting the rules about what kind of behavior isn't okay in this space, instead of that space being owned by a corporation whose rules are largely designed to maximize their profits. Before the modern social media era there were billions of PHPBB sites that were largely differentiated only by the crowds who used them, and the choices the moderators made. It's really nice to have that back with some federation added in.