7 ms·

I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos), open and privacy first alternative would exist they would wa

by fx32s 6y ago

I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos), open and privacy first alternative would exist they would want to switch however I think once these platforms grow they would hit similar problems: * To operate in multiple countries so people can stay connected you have to abide by local laws even if they don't match the typical values. * Social media is inherently winner-takes all due to the requirement of critical mass and connectedness. The winners have shifted over time (myspace) before but it seems harder to do than with other consumer services. * Moderation of billions is a hard unsolved problem and is a game you can't win. You walk the tight rope of either allowing hate speech or being too overreaching in censoring. I'm not sure other startups will solve this any better. * I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition, especially not for services where the people themselves choose to use it or not. Some share of people like using facebook and I don't feel banning them for the sake of their success is the right solution. While I'm from europe myself I feel over-regulating is one (among many) of the reasons why there are almost no dominant tech players here. * Monetisation and use of user data. While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice. The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms compared to smaller players where the likelihood of privacy incidents is arguably higher.

BraveSnoo1028 6y ago
> I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos) The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. > I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population. > While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook. > The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms I can't take you seriously. You must be joking.
- fx32s 6y ago
  > The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems. > I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population. > There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook. I don't claim the US has the optimal system here but I think it's dangerous to claim to know what people want under the guise that they don't know what they are doing. People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change. > I can't take you seriously. You must be joking. I failed to add enough context but I was mainly talking about advertisement based companies that chose this monetisation path. Having worked at start-ups I'm highly confident that many of them don't have security and/or privacy (anonymity) as a first (or second or third) priority. FB has made grave errors here but I'm not sure I trust "random FB replacer" any more given FB is under a magnifying glass not with people watching their every move.
  - rpastuszak 6y ago
    > People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change. This is why populists or platforms like FB make sure that people either don’t know that things can change or that they already live in the best version of the reality and, well, everyone else has it worse.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Right because FB controls people’s access to information to the point where they keep people from knowing “The Truth”.
  - frabcus 6y ago
    "People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change." That isn't how monopolies work - while some people can individually make huge sacrificies and not use any Facebook product, in reality that isn't practical and few people will because they are a monopoly. This isn't like buying a car where there are multiple providers who all use the same roads and petrol. Or the mobile phone system, where there are standards (GSM) and regulations so you have a choice of physical and virtual networks. In my mind, breaking up Facebook would be a massively pro-market (increase choice and competition) and massively pro-capitalist (increase investment of capital, profit and innovation) move.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by fx32s 6y ago

BraveSnoo1028 6y ago

> I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos) The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. > I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population. > While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook. > The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms I can't take you seriously. You must be joking.

fx32s 6y ago
> The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc. You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems. > I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population. > There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook. I don't claim the US has the optimal system here but I think it's dangerous to claim to know what people want under the guise that they don't know what they are doing. People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change. > I can't take you seriously. You must be joking. I failed to add enough context but I was mainly talking about advertisement based companies that chose this monetisation path. Having worked at start-ups I'm highly confident that many of them don't have security and/or privacy (anonymity) as a first (or second or third) priority. FB has made grave errors here but I'm not sure I trust "random FB replacer" any more given FB is under a magnifying glass not with people watching their every move.
- rpastuszak 6y ago
  > People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change. This is why populists or platforms like FB make sure that people either don’t know that things can change or that they already live in the best version of the reality and, well, everyone else has it worse.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Right because FB controls people’s access to information to the point where they keep people from knowing “The Truth”.
- frabcus 6y ago
  "People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change." That isn't how monopolies work - while some people can individually make huge sacrificies and not use any Facebook product, in reality that isn't practical and few people will because they are a monopoly. This isn't like buying a car where there are multiple providers who all use the same roads and petrol. Or the mobile phone system, where there are standards (GSM) and regulations so you have a choice of physical and virtual networks. In my mind, breaking up Facebook would be a massively pro-market (increase choice and competition) and massively pro-capitalist (increase investment of capital, profit and innovation) move.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]