4 ms·

> just because you don't like the person... Do we need that person to keep having the product though? > Most people don't give two fraks... They sure don't.

by kubb 2y ago

> just because you don't like the person... Do we need that person to keep having the product though? > Most people don't give two fraks... They sure don't. These products and services are more like a... public good, used by and available to everyone. But if it's a common good then should it be managed like a dictatorship? The people using them don't have an equivalent alternative, and the companies have moats on a scale never seen before. Is that an issue? Zuck is selling his customers wholesale, and squandering the resulting cash on asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse. Maybe he should have just stayed with the initial product? Maybe these public platforms would better serve the people using them without the person running/ruining/most associated with the brand?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Maybe? I'm first to argue that, past certain size, social media platforms become de-facto town squares / utilities, and should be treated as such. But, until they are... > Zuck is selling his customers wholesale, and squandering the resulting cash on asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse. Maybe he should have just stayed with the initial product? ... until they are, it's kind of the core axiom behind capitalism and market economy and social order in most places around the world, that this is his money, and if he wants to be "squandering the resulting cash on" (according to you) "asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse", it's his prerogative.
- kubb 2y ago
  Sure, currently Zuck can do anything he wants with the money he gets from the users in his cage. We should really open the cage though. Can you imagine being able to call people only on your mobile network, or being able to send e-mail only to people using the same e-mail provider? Yet we accept only being able to connect with, share photos and posts, message, subscribe to people on the same social platform as you. If we can define a technical specification for exchanging social data, and enforce that the platforms above certain size implement it, Zuck won't even have the cash to dump on Metaverse. Every platform can then have their own algorithmic feed so you can chose your own echo chamber. The moat is only good the Zucks of the world. It absolutely sucks for everyone else.

by kubb 2y ago

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Maybe? I'm first to argue that, past certain size, social media platforms become de-facto town squares / utilities, and should be treated as such. But, until they are... > Zuck is selling his customers wholesale, and squandering the resulting cash on asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse. Maybe he should have just stayed with the initial product? ... until they are, it's kind of the core axiom behind capitalism and market economy and social order in most places around the world, that this is his money, and if he wants to be "squandering the resulting cash on" (according to you) "asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse", it's his prerogative.

kubb 2y ago
Sure, currently Zuck can do anything he wants with the money he gets from the users in his cage. We should really open the cage though. Can you imagine being able to call people only on your mobile network, or being able to send e-mail only to people using the same e-mail provider? Yet we accept only being able to connect with, share photos and posts, message, subscribe to people on the same social platform as you. If we can define a technical specification for exchanging social data, and enforce that the platforms above certain size implement it, Zuck won't even have the cash to dump on Metaverse. Every platform can then have their own algorithmic feed so you can chose your own echo chamber. The moat is only good the Zucks of the world. It absolutely sucks for everyone else.