(I'm still trying to figure out how someone could be stupid enough to clear attempts like those. I mean, there must have been a meeting somewhere discussing it?)
Bad news: there are at least 70 million people in the US alone that gullible and stupid.
Ridiculous comment. Zuck actively censored conservative viewpoints; allowed Antifa and other leftist groups to call for violence; held fundraisers for Dems and pored money into battleground states he has no offices in - but you think he’s going to get support from conservatives? Let me guess: Russia, Russia, Russia! (debunked)
Ridiculous comment (see what I did?). If you pay attention, Zuck is out for Zuck. Not left or right, just Zuck.
No amount of technology or engineering prowess is going to solve the problems related to social media. Likewise, no corporate entity is going to solve the problems created by its social media platforms when doing so is not in the best interest of their bottom line and profitability. It’s like asking firearms manufacturers to solve illegal firearms use.
Here I'm going to have to disagree; but I'd need a proper lecture hall, a couple of whiteboards, and a couple of weeks, to go through it all.
Long story short; I've done some interdisciplinary work where I've taken aspects of (among other things) game theory, value theory, business development, and the history of (the protocols/standards of) the internet, to look at the underlying requirements of a self-sustaining open solution to what we use social networks/media for.
And the short answer is that I think it's possible to build a commercially sound series of products and services, which then evolves into a complete solution that practically acts like how we use social networking today. Without it devolving into a ssdd type of a situation (ie one where we end up with a new corporate overlord similar to today's FB).
So I do think that there is an amount of tech/prowess that could solve this; and I do think that a corporate entity that sees such a solution would find it in their best commercial interest to be the first to implement it.
Apple should never get into the social media business, even adhering to its strict privacy rules. There is too much involved in policing what users post to be worth it IMO
That still assumes a technology that functions much like a traditional internet social network does today; i.e. one that's completely under the control of a corporate entity (well-meaning, or not).
Compare that with a technology that either practically or in spirit comes from the 80s open systems way of thinking; like email, the web, and jabber.
There's simply no direct policing of content involved in solutions like those, because there's no central authority in perfect control of them. Yes, websites can get kicked off hosting services, and emails can get caught reciever-side in spamfilters; but there will never be a situation where some corporate spokesperson is interviewed about why a certain individual or organisation has been kicked out of the email and or web platform totally, because there's simply no centralised platform like that.
So by your second sentence there you've added a premiss that simply isn't necessarily true, but which your conclusion is completely relying on.
Comments
Russia? Debunked? Not really.
Long story short; I've done some interdisciplinary work where I've taken aspects of (among other things) game theory, value theory, business development, and the history of (the protocols/standards of) the internet, to look at the underlying requirements of a self-sustaining open solution to what we use social networks/media for.
And the short answer is that I think it's possible to build a commercially sound series of products and services, which then evolves into a complete solution that practically acts like how we use social networking today. Without it devolving into a ssdd type of a situation (ie one where we end up with a new corporate overlord similar to today's FB).
So I do think that there is an amount of tech/prowess that could solve this; and I do think that a corporate entity that sees such a solution would find it in their best commercial interest to be the first to implement it.
Compare that with a technology that either practically or in spirit comes from the 80s open systems way of thinking; like email, the web, and jabber.
There's simply no direct policing of content involved in solutions like those, because there's no central authority in perfect control of them. Yes, websites can get kicked off hosting services, and emails can get caught reciever-side in spamfilters; but there will never be a situation where some corporate spokesperson is interviewed about why a certain individual or organisation has been kicked out of the email and or web platform totally, because there's simply no centralised platform like that.
So by your second sentence there you've added a premiss that simply isn't necessarily true, but which your conclusion is completely relying on.