We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
As long as people don't have the freedom to migrate between platforms, the companies managing those platforms have a stranglehold on your social sphere, and the better part of bargaining power with the government. As a user and a citizen, you have the power to unsubscribe to social media or vote out your current representative, but only the latter is an action that comes at minimal or no cost to you. If you depend on the service and its existence becomes threatened, you will defend it against that threat. If dependency on the service can somehow be mitigated or threatened by ease of migration, then the power to unsubscribe can be directly utilized against the companies instead of against the government, putting pressure on the social media market to respect the users' power create something that will make them want rather than need to stay on the platform. When I talk about decentralization, it's removing power from the companies and giving it to the individual users rather than distributing from the government side.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's the worst of all worlds. Mandatory compliance with N ill-defined specifications. Want to implement a new feature? Good luck. Want to interface with others? Now you have to write everything to do anything
Even better the big companies can afford to throw a few dozen developers to continually "advance" their own standards and develop new ones that everybody else then has to keep up with
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
As long as people don't have the freedom to migrate between platforms, the companies managing those platforms have a stranglehold on your social sphere, and the better part of bargaining power with the government. As a user and a citizen, you have the power to unsubscribe to social media or vote out your current representative, but only the latter is an action that comes at minimal or no cost to you. If you depend on the service and its existence becomes threatened, you will defend it against that threat. If dependency on the service can somehow be mitigated or threatened by ease of migration, then the power to unsubscribe can be directly utilized against the companies instead of against the government, putting pressure on the social media market to respect the users' power create something that will make them want rather than need to stay on the platform. When I talk about decentralization, it's removing power from the companies and giving it to the individual users rather than distributing from the government side.
Switching between social media platforms is only costly because the only value in social media platforms is your connection to other users. The only way to make it cost-free for a user to switch from Facebook to some other social service is if they can maintain the same connections with Facebook users they did when they were also a Facebook user, which is just straight-up impossible without just throwing security concerns out the window. And if you did somehow find a way to make every social media service interact seamlessly without every user action invoking a torrent of security checkboxes, it would be impossible to ever moderate the system because the creation of content and distribution of messages would have to be independent of any individual platform and thus that platform's moderation rules. You'd be left with the dystopian social feed system from Neil Stephenson's Fall novel where you can't actually interact with social media directly anymore because it's just a non-stop firehose of pure shit so you have to pay human moderators to curate a stream for you.
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
Privacy-wise, that could be "Hey, Mom, can you go to settings->interoperability in Facebook, and send me the external app key so I can follow you". It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
And yes, this would not be in Facebook's business interests, which is why this would need to be legislation.
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
Privacy-wise, that could be "Hey, Mom, can you go to settings->interoperability in Facebook, and send me the external app key so I can follow you". It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
And yes, this would not be in Facebook's business interests, which is why this would need to be legislation.
Yeah, we already do exactly this sort of thing with email and calendars and the like, and it works perfectly fine.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
This is called an RSS feed
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
Privacy-wise, that could be "Hey, Mom, can you go to settings->interoperability in Facebook, and send me the external app key so I can follow you". It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
And yes, this would not be in Facebook's business interests, which is why this would need to be legislation.
I don't know about you, but expecting my Mom to do something like that is at the thin edge of possible.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
Privacy-wise, that could be "Hey, Mom, can you go to settings->interoperability in Facebook, and send me the external app key so I can follow you". It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
And yes, this would not be in Facebook's business interests, which is why this would need to be legislation.
I don't know about you, but expecting my Mom to do something like that is at the thin edge of possible.
There could be a share button on your profile page that opens up the standard os panel where you can text/email/dm/whatever your profile key. They wouldn't and shouldn't need to go into system or app settings to connect with people. In fact, better that the standards body design UX guidelines social platforms must adhere to when using this protocol so there is no confusion from app to app.
Make it a government mandate for any social network that collectively has more than 1mm active users to either use the industry standard protocol or have full integration / interoperability with it.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
Privacy-wise, that could be "Hey, Mom, can you go to settings->interoperability in Facebook, and send me the external app key so I can follow you". It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
And yes, this would not be in Facebook's business interests, which is why this would need to be legislation.
I don't know about you, but expecting my Mom to do something like that is at the thin edge of possible.
When Microsoft made everyone's default search engine Bing and made changing the default byzantine, Google came up with a 1-click solution to make the change whenever you visited its website
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We so need a standardized modular social media profile format. It's a cornerstone of truly decentralized social media and free platform migration
I'm not sure what that would even look like. "Social media" is a pretty broad umbrella. The information in my Facebook profile is very different and only slightly overlapping with what's in my LinkedIn profile or my Meetup profile, and back when I had dating profiles or a FetLife profile there wasn't much overlap there, either. What would a format look like that would include whatever data is coupled to my YouTube account (if I had one) or my Spotify account or Pinterest?
A basic biographical information profile and some kind of standardized "created content" format and "liked/shared/something content" maybe but I also don't really think I'd want to have a single blob containing every piece of data from every social account I've ever had and then trust some new platform with that data blob.
Edit: I also don't know why decentralized social media would be a goal. It makes moderation literally impossible.
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
Privacy-wise, that could be "Hey, Mom, can you go to settings->interoperability in Facebook, and send me the external app key so I can follow you". It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
And yes, this would not be in Facebook's business interests, which is why this would need to be legislation.
I don't know about you, but expecting my Mom to do something like that is at the thin edge of possible.
When Microsoft made everyone's default search engine Bing and made changing the default byzantine, Google came up with a 1-click solution to make the change whenever you visited its website
I wonder if Microsoft is jealous that Australia targeted Google and left Bing alone?
Regardless, I have an irrationally strong dislike for Bing. I get that shit out of my face as soon as possible.
Bing has a little less than 4% of the search market share in Australia. Microsoft is ecstatic that Australia targeted Google and Facebook and left them alone
At CPAC just moments ago, republican senator Hawley, he of the insurrection fist pump fame, said he wants to break up google/facebook/twitter. Don't know if he's going to work with Sen. Warren on that or not
That's been a thing for awhile now. The Trump DOJ and groups of state AGs, including many republicans, have several lawsuits going after facebook/google/etc working their way through the courts even now. It's basically like the whole "the media is bad" thing where they reach a vaguely right conclusion based on really bad reasoning.
The guy that told the fbi about the plot to kidnap and murder michigan governer Whitmer, found out about the plot because he was in a Facebook group that was recommended to him by the algorithms. Detroit free press article.
Ryan Mac is a social media reporter for huff Post. He gets invited, against the wishes of Facebook, into all the Facebook internal staff meetings, and often posts the minutes to twitter. Here is something a Facebook employee just said in one of these meetings
How long till FB does a deep dive on this person's internet footprint in an attempt to teach its algos to filter for prospective snitches?
At a former employer I participated in writing up a proposal to respond to a government solicitation for programs that would model people's likelihood to be recruited into radical terrorist organizations based on their online social footprint.
Ryan Mac is a social media reporter for huff Post. He gets invited, against the wishes of Facebook, into all the Facebook internal staff meetings, and often posts the minutes to twitter. Here is something a Facebook employee just said in one of these meetings
Ryan Mac is a social media reporter for huff Post. He gets invited, against the wishes of Facebook, into all the Facebook internal staff meetings, and often posts the minutes to twitter. Here is something a Facebook employee just said in one of these meetings
Polarization can be good. "Polarization is how we got the civil rights movement"
I think that's a paraphrase, for whatever that is worth
Edit:works for buzz feed, not huff post
This is essentially the argument I made earlier except that I didn't say that this was good, just that it was a thing that happened.
To briefly summarize my earlier statement, social media led to ideas that once didn't have a platform getting one, and that led to people arguing for and against those ideas to a degree that couldn't be ignored. I honestly doubt that most of the socially progressive ideas that have gained mainstream traction in the last decade would have gained that traction without social media enabling attention-grabbing culture wars that encouraged individuals observers as well as larger institutions to declare themselves for whichever side, causing polarization. Without social media I don't see progressive ideas being as embraced as rapidly as they were in the 10's; instead, they'd have probably changed little from the 00's.
I still wouldn't call this good, but I would call it accelerationist. Ideas that didn't have an effective platform before became widespread, and tensions that previously were buried under a guise of civility were laid bare. Surely there could have been a better way for the 10's and its implementation of social media to have played out, but I don't know what would have been best.
Ryan Mac is a social media reporter for huff Post. He gets invited, against the wishes of Facebook, into all the Facebook internal staff meetings, and often posts the minutes to twitter. Here is something a Facebook employee just said in one of these meetings
Polarization can be good. "Polarization is how we got the civil rights movement"
I think that's a paraphrase, for whatever that is worth
Edit:works for buzz feed, not huff post
This is essentially the argument I made earlier except that I didn't say that this was good, just that it was a thing that happened.
To briefly summarize my earlier statement, social media led to ideas that once didn't have a platform getting one, and that led to people arguing for and against those ideas to a degree that couldn't be ignored. I honestly doubt that most of the socially progressive ideas that have gained mainstream traction in the last decade would have gained that traction without social media enabling attention-grabbing culture wars that encouraged individuals observers as well as larger institutions to declare themselves for whichever side, causing polarization. Without social media I don't see progressive ideas being as embraced as rapidly as they were in the 10's; instead, they'd have probably changed little from the 00's.
I still wouldn't call this good, but I would call it accelerationist. Ideas that didn't have an effective platform before became widespread, and tensions that previously were buried under a guise of civility were laid bare. Surely there could have been a better way for the 10's and its implementation of social media to have played out, but I don't know what would have been best.
Which still doesn't justify social media giving fascists a platform. This forum demonstrates that you can have vibrant debate without putting people's humanity up for discussion
I thought this forum kinda just gave up on people being able to debate or discuss particular topics, because people were totally incapable of not pretty much putting people's basic humanity up for discussion.
At least for a while there, D&D wasn't allowed to have trans/genderqueer threads, right?
I thought this forum kinda just gave up on people being able to debate or discuss particular topics, because people were totally incapable of not pretty much putting people's basic humanity up for discussion.
At least for a while there, D&D wasn't allowed to have trans/genderqueer threads, right?
I remember when it happened, and I remember how happy it made me. It was not pleasant to see my existence dissected like some thought experiment even though the majority was pro trans people.
Ryan Mac is a social media reporter for huff Post. He gets invited, against the wishes of Facebook, into all the Facebook internal staff meetings, and often posts the minutes to twitter. Here is something a Facebook employee just said in one of these meetings
I think internet debates, on this forum or other social media, are pretty circular because they're public and nobody's laying down any stakes. With strict moderation, the forums are a better solution to aggregating more accurate information, but the normal objectives and deliverables of debates are kind of not there, for the most part. People just want to be heard or vent. It takes a special situation to tackle a problem with contrasting viewpoints, and I don't think it can be found until people come together with an underlying foundation of agreement.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
A start would be to require social networking sites to create per-account feeds so that I can "follow" people on Facebook even if I'm not. (With some provision for privacy, of course.) The ability to follow people on Facebook would be really useful to have, so I'll assume the other social networking sites will add the ability to use these feeds pretty quickly, and it doesn't really matter if there's 5 competing standards, as the user doesn't need to deal with it, just the developers, so there's no need to put the actual specification into law, just the capabilities.
As long as people don't have the freedom to migrate between platforms, the companies managing those platforms have a stranglehold on your social sphere, and the better part of bargaining power with the government. As a user and a citizen, you have the power to unsubscribe to social media or vote out your current representative, but only the latter is an action that comes at minimal or no cost to you. If you depend on the service and its existence becomes threatened, you will defend it against that threat. If dependency on the service can somehow be mitigated or threatened by ease of migration, then the power to unsubscribe can be directly utilized against the companies instead of against the government, putting pressure on the social media market to respect the users' power create something that will make them want rather than need to stay on the platform. When I talk about decentralization, it's removing power from the companies and giving it to the individual users rather than distributing from the government side.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Even better the big companies can afford to throw a few dozen developers to continually "advance" their own standards and develop new ones that everybody else then has to keep up with
How would that work with privacy settings? I have to assume accounts would default to "not visible for non-Facebook-users" on their feeds.
And how would sites that aren't Facebook use these feeds? If BookFace.com wanted to serve up Facebook feed data to you you'd either have to manually pick people to subscribe to or it would have to also have access to Facebook friend/group membership data in order to know who to suggest to you.
Exposing all their content to external consumers would mean Facebook both loses out on ad revenue from you consuming that data because you're consuming it via some other site's UI and loses out on usage data to further refine your profile. It's absolutely the opposite of their business model. You'd have to codify the API specifications, or at least very explicit capability specifications, in the law because Facebook is going to do the absolute legal minimum to comply.
Switching between social media platforms is only costly because the only value in social media platforms is your connection to other users. The only way to make it cost-free for a user to switch from Facebook to some other social service is if they can maintain the same connections with Facebook users they did when they were also a Facebook user, which is just straight-up impossible without just throwing security concerns out the window. And if you did somehow find a way to make every social media service interact seamlessly without every user action invoking a torrent of security checkboxes, it would be impossible to ever moderate the system because the creation of content and distribution of messages would have to be independent of any individual platform and thus that platform's moderation rules. You'd be left with the dystopian social feed system from Neil Stephenson's Fall novel where you can't actually interact with social media directly anymore because it's just a non-stop firehose of pure shit so you have to pay human moderators to curate a stream for you.
Privacy-wise, that could be "Hey, Mom, can you go to settings->interoperability in Facebook, and send me the external app key so I can follow you". It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
And yes, this would not be in Facebook's business interests, which is why this would need to be legislation.
Yeah, we already do exactly this sort of thing with email and calendars and the like, and it works perfectly fine.
This is called an RSS feed
I don't know about you, but expecting my Mom to do something like that is at the thin edge of possible.
There could be a share button on your profile page that opens up the standard os panel where you can text/email/dm/whatever your profile key. They wouldn't and shouldn't need to go into system or app settings to connect with people. In fact, better that the standards body design UX guidelines social platforms must adhere to when using this protocol so there is no confusion from app to app.
Make it a government mandate for any social network that collectively has more than 1mm active users to either use the industry standard protocol or have full integration / interoperability with it.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
When Microsoft made everyone's default search engine Bing and made changing the default byzantine, Google came up with a 1-click solution to make the change whenever you visited its website
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I wonder if Microsoft is jealous that Australia targeted Google and left Bing alone?
Regardless, I have an irrationally strong dislike for Bing. I get that shit out of my face as soon as possible.
Thanks to Facebook, a lot more.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
And that's how they always look. 80-90% right-wingers (and usually the same ones), with the remainder usually being cute animals.
But yeah, conservatives are totally being cancelled. Facebook was totes being nonpolitical.
This is why I cringed when I saw my Grandpa got a smartphone.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Three months ago.
Polarization can be good. "Polarization is how we got the civil rights movement"
I think that's a paraphrase, for whatever that is worth
Edit:works for buzz feed, not huff post
At a former employer I participated in writing up a proposal to respond to a government solicitation for programs that would model people's likelihood to be recruited into radical terrorist organizations based on their online social footprint.
That was 13 years ago.
That is some “the vietnam war was good, it lead to the GI bill” level thinking there.
MWO: Adamski
This is essentially the argument I made earlier except that I didn't say that this was good, just that it was a thing that happened.
To briefly summarize my earlier statement, social media led to ideas that once didn't have a platform getting one, and that led to people arguing for and against those ideas to a degree that couldn't be ignored. I honestly doubt that most of the socially progressive ideas that have gained mainstream traction in the last decade would have gained that traction without social media enabling attention-grabbing culture wars that encouraged individuals observers as well as larger institutions to declare themselves for whichever side, causing polarization. Without social media I don't see progressive ideas being as embraced as rapidly as they were in the 10's; instead, they'd have probably changed little from the 00's.
I still wouldn't call this good, but I would call it accelerationist. Ideas that didn't have an effective platform before became widespread, and tensions that previously were buried under a guise of civility were laid bare. Surely there could have been a better way for the 10's and its implementation of social media to have played out, but I don't know what would have been best.
Which still doesn't justify social media giving fascists a platform. This forum demonstrates that you can have vibrant debate without putting people's humanity up for discussion
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
At least for a while there, D&D wasn't allowed to have trans/genderqueer threads, right?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I remember when it happened, and I remember how happy it made me. It was not pleasant to see my existence dissected like some thought experiment even though the majority was pro trans people.
What does Facebook get out of that (as in, why do they put up with it)? Does Buzzfeed have that much pull?
If they could stop ryan from access/second hand coverage/whatever, they would have by now. They complain about him by name, even.
...same question. If Facebook doesn't want him there, how come the person who keeps inviting him still works at Facebook?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.