4 ms·

Do we need their permission to implement it? Could be a browser extension.

by __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago

mrmarket 5mo ago
true. but that's on the individual vs. the platform so it won't be perfect adoption. better than nothing tho.
- __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
  Sure, its opt-in, but it has the potential to span platforms. Works just as well on somebody's blog as it does on Twitter.
robot-wrangler 5mo ago
Or post it as a reply in url, hope for the silent majority to support it enough to send it to the top. If the platform only supports out-links it's tough.. maybe use QR codes as avatars?
- __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
  Trouble with replies is that: 1. They're not as visible as the post they're attempting to moderate, so people just won't notice that there's more info. 2. Many people practice https://indieweb.org/POSSE https://indieweb.org/POSSE so you now need to duplicate your reply across many separate social networks if you're going to match the reach of the specified content. The nice thing about a plugin is you can associate the annotation with the underlying content by CTPH hash (i.e. the underlying tech for virus signatures) so it shows up wherever the annotated content shows up, regardless of URL and and with identical visibility since you're going by what appears on the screen not by whatever internal logic the underlying site uses.
swed420 5mo ago
> Do we need their permission to implement it? Could be a browser extension. Instead of bandaid-hack solutions leading to perpetual cat-and-mouse, why not build a citizen-owned platform from the ground up, as detailed here: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ You would barely even need to advertise for it if it was obviously better than any of the existing corporate slop. It would sell itself, and the "profit" would be the end result that everybody can enjoy.
- __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
  Because I don't think the problem has to do with who owns the platform, but rather its that the platform's design relies on infrastructure that can be owned in the first place. The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil, being in a powerful position made them that way. I'll be rooting for this user owned thing to stay true to its goals, but if it's shaped like the other ones in all ways but its ownership structure, then I won't be expecting it to do so.
  - swed420 5mo ago
    I believe that threat could be prevented with the suggestions in the article. > The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil Um, not all of them: > On July 6 instant messages by a 19-year Zuck appeared on Twitter, along with a link to a 2010 Business Insider story about an exchange that took place shortly after the Facebook founder launched the social-media phenomenon in his dorm room. > “Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard just me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS,” Zuckerberg’s message says. > “What? How’d you manage that one?” a friend asks. > “People just submitted it,” Zuckerberg responds. “I don’t know why they 'trust me.' Dumb fucks.”
    - __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
      Touche re: Zuck, but I still think that even had he started a saint, he'd be a sinner by now.
      - swed420 5mo ago
        True, which is why you'd need well defined safeguards in place from the very beginning, with high visibility into the organization that you normally wouldn't find in a closed, for-profit business.
        __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
        You mean like OpenAI back when it was a nonprofit?
wrxd 5mo ago
It could. But most people use social media from mobile apps so it doesn’t really help in the grand scheme of things

Do we need their permission to implement it? Could be a browser extension.

mrmarket 5mo ago

true. but that's on the individual vs. the platform so it won't be perfect adoption. better than nothing tho.

__MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
Sure, its opt-in, but it has the potential to span platforms. Works just as well on somebody's blog as it does on Twitter.

robot-wrangler 5mo ago

Or post it as a reply in url, hope for the silent majority to support it enough to send it to the top. If the platform only supports out-links it's tough.. maybe use QR codes as avatars?

__MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
Trouble with replies is that: 1. They're not as visible as the post they're attempting to moderate, so people just won't notice that there's more info. 2. Many people practice https://indieweb.org/POSSE https://indieweb.org/POSSE so you now need to duplicate your reply across many separate social networks if you're going to match the reach of the specified content. The nice thing about a plugin is you can associate the annotation with the underlying content by CTPH hash (i.e. the underlying tech for virus signatures) so it shows up wherever the annotated content shows up, regardless of URL and and with identical visibility since you're going by what appears on the screen not by whatever internal logic the underlying site uses.

swed420 5mo ago

> Do we need their permission to implement it? Could be a browser extension. Instead of bandaid-hack solutions leading to perpetual cat-and-mouse, why not build a citizen-owned platform from the ground up, as detailed here: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ You would barely even need to advertise for it if it was obviously better than any of the existing corporate slop. It would sell itself, and the "profit" would be the end result that everybody can enjoy.

__MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
Because I don't think the problem has to do with who owns the platform, but rather its that the platform's design relies on infrastructure that can be owned in the first place. The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil, being in a powerful position made them that way. I'll be rooting for this user owned thing to stay true to its goals, but if it's shaped like the other ones in all ways but its ownership structure, then I won't be expecting it to do so.
- swed420 5mo ago
  I believe that threat could be prevented with the suggestions in the article. > The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil Um, not all of them: > On July 6 instant messages by a 19-year Zuck appeared on Twitter, along with a link to a 2010 Business Insider story about an exchange that took place shortly after the Facebook founder launched the social-media phenomenon in his dorm room. > “Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard just me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS,” Zuckerberg’s message says. > “What? How’d you manage that one?” a friend asks. > “People just submitted it,” Zuckerberg responds. “I don’t know why they 'trust me.' Dumb fucks.”
  - __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
    Touche re: Zuck, but I still think that even had he started a saint, he'd be a sinner by now.
    - swed420 5mo ago
      True, which is why you'd need well defined safeguards in place from the very beginning, with high visibility into the organization that you normally wouldn't find in a closed, for-profit business.
      - __MatrixMan__ 5mo ago
        You mean like OpenAI back when it was a nonprofit?

wrxd 5mo ago

It could. But most people use social media from mobile apps so it doesn’t really help in the grand scheme of things