Ask HN: Organize local communities without Facebook?

Post by graemep » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 5:37 PM UTC

Hasu wrote: post #150

graemep wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless, no private platform is forced to provide you a voice. That was a reasonable stance historically. Only the government had real power to control speech. Now a tiny number of platforms have a huge amount of power. They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication.

> They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication Absolute bullshit. It has never been easier in history to publish your own thoughts for the consumption of anyone who is interested in reading them. You can make your own website and put just about whatever you want on it. You can write and publish pamphlets or books with p…

Post by scarface_74 » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 5:40 PM UTC

graemep wrote: post #161

Hasu wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication Absolute bullshit. It has never been easier in history to publish your own thoughts for the consumption of anyone who is interested in reading them. You can make your own website and put just about whatever you want on it. You can write and publish pamphlets or books with p…

> You don't have to use their platforms. Yes, but you can reach far fewer people if you do not. This is well on the way to arguing that you are free to say what you want in a sealed room.

Post by scarface_74 » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 5:42 PM UTC

graemep wrote: post #159

scarface_74 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, during the civil rights movement there was no social media and mainstream media. You use personal outreach and then you build up from there. There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc

> There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc Which are now largely dependent on social media and the like to reach people. Church's somewhat less so because they do have services that people physically go to. Most campaign and advocacy groups work online, and for some social media is their main focus. They have to go where people are.

Post by latexr » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 5:46 PM UTC

jf22 wrote: post #160

latexr wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is precisely that you don’t need a social networking platform to do something meaningful .

I don't think the author was talking about isolated change like planting some seeds. Real change requires humans to collaborate and work together.

Post by shireboy » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 5:48 PM UTC