3 ms·

Do we need publicly-owned social networks to escape Silicon Valley?

17 points by belter 1y ago

hunglee2 1y ago
if not, then we at least need indigenous social networks, rather than ones controlled by foreign states. Dependency on the US internet was cool for a long while but its national security priority for every country to run their own, walled off internet, ideally one which is nonetheless interoperable with others.
MilnerRoute 1y ago
I was reading a biography about PBS and Mister Rogers - and it's fascinating to see the high hopes everyone had for a non-commercial TV channel. TV was a new medium, and the idea was to create high-quality alternative programming - specifically to address problems they were seeing.
- egberts1 1y ago
  That is ... until corporate donor started donating to PBS with stipulations attached.
Bender 1y ago
Any platform that reaches a sufficient size will be taken over by powerful people regardless of who was originally running it. Alternatively those in power will destroy it or influence enough public opinion to make using it taboo. With time all large platforms devolve into echo chambers and bot / AI slopyards no matter how good they started out or what the original intentions were. To me the behavior of publicly owned is exactly what Twitter had become given all the former FBI agents working inside of it and complying with requests. The response to that was someone with a lot of money taking it over to use as their playground in the faux name of free speech. Neither of those creates an unbiased platform for all people to discuss ideas. It devolved into crap and then further devolved into a different scent of crap. Once a platform steps in the bog of eternal stench there is no ridding itself of that smell.
- belter 1y ago
  > Any platform that reaches a sufficient size will be taken over by powerful people regardless of who was originally running it. I am not sure a social network, run buy the democratic votes and non-profit board of Swiss cantons or Danish town halls...Will be equivalent to one governed by a semi-psychotic billionaire with daddy's issues, who runs his own Lebensborn operation...
  - Bender 1y ago
    run buy the democratic votes and non-profit board of Swiss cantons or Danish town halls Maybe if they keep the site small enough and only influencing specific communities that share similar beliefs then it could last for a while, especially if it's locked down to people from those communities. This is just my opinion but if it is too open and inclusive there will be invasions by manipulators. Those operating it would have to be brave enough to just instantly whack the accounts belonging to agent provocateurs, spammers, trolls and shills with little or no explanation. Perhaps even require people to register at the town halls and to return to the town hall if their account is whacked. Anyone doing shenanigans would not be able to hide behind a keyboard, proxy or VPN.
    - riehwvfbk 1y ago
      And in doing so, ensure that the network is too boring for anyone to use, except for the local flower shop posting its ads.
      - Bender 1y ago
        And in doing so, ensure that the network is too boring for anyone to use, except for the local flower shop posting its ads. Agreed. That's kindof my point though. The only way to keep out the dingdongs is to lock it down. Leave it open and exciting then it quickly develops a bad smell from all the manipulators, trolls, shills, agent provocateurs, etc...
        1y ago
zugi 1y ago
> However, they’ve consolidated themselves as quasi-monopolies I don't understand the recent trend of mentioning a field being a "monopoly" while then discussing Twitter, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon all in that very same article. Social networks definitely benefit from economies of scale as larger platforms enable interaction with more users. But consumers have many, many choices for social networking, including nearly every website and app that adds social networking features. It reminds me of the time a decade or two ago when the government accused three companies of having a monopoly on "super premium ice cream." There are thousands of suppliers of ice cream, and hundreds of suppliers of "premium ice cream", but only three suppliers of "super premium ice cream." Certainly if you artificially define any market small enough you can declare a monopoly. But there are so many sites, apps, and options to interact socially with others online that it seems absurd to imply that anyone has a monopoly on social networking.
more_corn 1y ago
Do we need social networks at all?

17 points by belter 1y ago

if not, then we at least need indigenous social networks, rather than ones controlled by foreign states. Dependency on the US internet was cool for a long while but its national security priority for every country to run their own, walled off internet, ideally one which is nonetheless interoperable with others.

MilnerRoute 1y ago

I was reading a biography about PBS and Mister Rogers - and it's fascinating to see the high hopes everyone had for a non-commercial TV channel. TV was a new medium, and the idea was to create high-quality alternative programming - specifically to address problems they were seeing.

egberts1 1y ago
That is ... until corporate donor started donating to PBS with stipulations attached.

Bender 1y ago

Any platform that reaches a sufficient size will be taken over by powerful people regardless of who was originally running it. Alternatively those in power will destroy it or influence enough public opinion to make using it taboo. With time all large platforms devolve into echo chambers and bot / AI slopyards no matter how good they started out or what the original intentions were. To me the behavior of publicly owned is exactly what Twitter had become given all the former FBI agents working inside of it and complying with requests. The response to that was someone with a lot of money taking it over to use as their playground in the faux name of free speech. Neither of those creates an unbiased platform for all people to discuss ideas. It devolved into crap and then further devolved into a different scent of crap. Once a platform steps in the bog of eternal stench there is no ridding itself of that smell.

belter 1y ago
> Any platform that reaches a sufficient size will be taken over by powerful people regardless of who was originally running it. I am not sure a social network, run buy the democratic votes and non-profit board of Swiss cantons or Danish town halls...Will be equivalent to one governed by a semi-psychotic billionaire with daddy's issues, who runs his own Lebensborn operation...
- Bender 1y ago
  run buy the democratic votes and non-profit board of Swiss cantons or Danish town halls Maybe if they keep the site small enough and only influencing specific communities that share similar beliefs then it could last for a while, especially if it's locked down to people from those communities. This is just my opinion but if it is too open and inclusive there will be invasions by manipulators. Those operating it would have to be brave enough to just instantly whack the accounts belonging to agent provocateurs, spammers, trolls and shills with little or no explanation. Perhaps even require people to register at the town halls and to return to the town hall if their account is whacked. Anyone doing shenanigans would not be able to hide behind a keyboard, proxy or VPN.
  - riehwvfbk 1y ago
    And in doing so, ensure that the network is too boring for anyone to use, except for the local flower shop posting its ads.
    - Bender 1y ago
      And in doing so, ensure that the network is too boring for anyone to use, except for the local flower shop posting its ads. Agreed. That's kindof my point though. The only way to keep out the dingdongs is to lock it down. Leave it open and exciting then it quickly develops a bad smell from all the manipulators, trolls, shills, agent provocateurs, etc...
      - 1y ago

zugi 1y ago

> However, they’ve consolidated themselves as quasi-monopolies I don't understand the recent trend of mentioning a field being a "monopoly" while then discussing Twitter, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon all in that very same article. Social networks definitely benefit from economies of scale as larger platforms enable interaction with more users. But consumers have many, many choices for social networking, including nearly every website and app that adds social networking features. It reminds me of the time a decade or two ago when the government accused three companies of having a monopoly on "super premium ice cream." There are thousands of suppliers of ice cream, and hundreds of suppliers of "premium ice cream", but only three suppliers of "super premium ice cream." Certainly if you artificially define any market small enough you can declare a monopoly. But there are so many sites, apps, and options to interact socially with others online that it seems absurd to imply that anyone has a monopoly on social networking.

more_corn 1y ago

Do we need social networks at all?