191–200 of 375 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple was not nearly the giant it is now when it invented the smartphone. What revolutionary ground-breaking products has that company produced now that it has become a giant?
Exactly. they are kind of coasting on previous innovations made a long time ago. Same for Google: Since search, Gmail, Android and Maps I don't see much innovation coming from there either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple was not nearly the giant it is now when it invented the smartphone. What revolutionary ground-breaking products has that company produced now that it has become a giant?
Exactly. they are kind of coasting on previous innovations made a long time ago. Same for Google: Since search, Gmail, Android and Maps I don't see much innovation coming from there either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gab is such a great example of this. You have a new player in social media (yet we apparently need to break up the big tech companies because you can't enter the market anymore). It operates in a successful niche. And it also is home to many far-right actors who hate Jews and minorities. Yet the claim is that breaking up the tech companies would help stop hate. Tim Berners Lee has no salient point here whatsoever, an…
Gab (and Voat, and, er, Hatreon) were open attempts to create far-right versions of existing websites. I don't think they're good examples of the inevitability of hatred. I'd hazard a guess that many more people are angry about hate speech on Reddit than about hate speech over email. The difference is that one is a company and the other is a federated standard. If I've understood Tim Berners-Lee correctly, he wants t…
When you compete with a monolith, your early adopters will be the people thrown off the bigger ship, and most of those people were thrown off for a reason.
Very few alt-repreneurs seem to understand this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gab is such a great example of this. You have a new player in social media (yet we apparently need to break up the big tech companies because you can't enter the market anymore). It operates in a successful niche. And it also is home to many far-right actors who hate Jews and minorities. Yet the claim is that breaking up the tech companies would help stop hate. Tim Berners Lee has no salient point here whatsoever, an…
Gab (and Voat, and, er, Hatreon) were open attempts to create far-right versions of existing websites. I don't think they're good examples of the inevitability of hatred. I'd hazard a guess that many more people are angry about hate speech on Reddit than about hate speech over email. The difference is that one is a company and the other is a federated standard. If I've understood Tim Berners-Lee correctly, he wants t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
at a certain rate of adoption doesn't that kind of become like "stop using email"
Nobody uses email any more ... I mean they use it but it's not a high-engagement medium. I'd guess nearly 90% of emails never get read.
That's not my experience.
I use email. At work they use email. My mom uses email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did I say something about 'trust' and 'government'? Seriously, I don't get the connection.
Your suggestion that large companies ought to be "bound by law" implies regulations by the government. Whether or not that is your intention is still up in the air. However, if the government owns the regulation then they get to set the standards of what a big company is on a per criteria basis. If the government is being attacked by a specific 'group', the government will then have the power to impose specific, targ…
We already do it with every other industry, social media only enjoys a lassaiz-faire regulation environment because of how new it is, the law hasn't caught up.
If there's nothing besides the quote below, I'd consider this an extremely weird and weak argument:
> What naturally happens is you end up with one company dominating the field so through history there is no alternative to really coming in and breaking things up. There is a danger of concentration.
> “If you put a drop of love into Twitter it seems to decay but if you put in a drop of hatred you feel it actually propagates much more strongly. And you wonder: ‘Well is that because of the way that Twitter as a medium has been built?’” How exactly is breaking up the tech giants going to solve this problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose tech companies were no longer legally allowed to use the network effect (i.e. they had to provide open-access to their public data via API). Then this would enable alternative front-ends on twitter. This would then enable me to filter messages by positivity, or whichever criteria I choose (e.g. non-Russian-bots, non-shills). This is turn would then change the whole ecosystem. It would remove the perverse ince…
or just stop using twitter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's so much right with your take here, IMO. It flies in the face of so much opposition from reality – much of it credible – like how the hell do you make money when you eschew walled gardens, engagement boosters, and adtech friendly practices? Do people even want to make the tradeoffs they'd have to? Is regulation too heavyhanded? Will it be that for as long as these systems can be turned into money machines, old…
I can't help but feel that the Internet is hamstrung by overreliance on advertising as a revenue model ... All of the opposing forces you describe simply evaporate if you charge a fee for access to the API. Something small and unobtrusive but which would at twitter scale add up to an awful lot of moolah. Because you're not trying to monetise your users beyond that it doesn't really matter if loads of people stop usin…
I'd suspect that "loads," in fact the majority, of twitter users would not pay anything out of their own pocket to use it.