11–20 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Were there 100 different Twitter-like companies >... they would all be bankrupt. Huh? There's over 2,000 Mastodon servers doing just fine
mastodon servers aren't companies.
> Companies like Facebook and Twitter have so much power because they are so large, and they face no real competition. I find it hard to take the rest of the article seriously when it's talking about Twitter as a giant monopoly that needs to be broken up... But also the argument seems fundamentally wrong. Account security is a prime example of a place where economies of scale bring a lot of benefit. I would absolutel…
This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…
I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…
How exactly do you propose to split up Twitter? Split the userbase into 100 groups? Who goes in which group? And what happens when people want to switch groups... ultimately coalescing in a single node? Because, you know, network effects. I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution!
The real answer is to mandate interoperability and equal treatment of competitor content. Then competition could grow on its own.
Personally I would just regulate it into oblivion.
> Companies like Facebook and Twitter have so much power because they are so large, and they face no real competition. I find it hard to take the rest of the article seriously when it's talking about Twitter as a giant monopoly that needs to be broken up... But also the argument seems fundamentally wrong. Account security is a prime example of a place where economies of scale bring a lot of benefit. I would absolutel…
This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…
And I get it that you don't like Twitter being a closed platform. Me neither. It's not ideal, but it's still more user friendly than Mastodon (sadly).
I wouldn't shed a tear if Twitter went bankrupt either, but I don't necessarily think it would lead to a better world (Facebook would be a stronger monopoly and that, I think, would make things worse).
> Companies like Facebook and Twitter have so much power because they are so large, and they face no real competition. I find it hard to take the rest of the article seriously when it's talking about Twitter as a giant monopoly that needs to be broken up... But also the argument seems fundamentally wrong. Account security is a prime example of a place where economies of scale bring a lot of benefit. I would absolutel…
This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…
How exactly do you propose to split up Twitter? Split the userbase into 100 groups? Who goes in which group? And what happens when people want to switch groups... ultimately coalescing in a single node? Because, you know, network effects. I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution!
Imagine how ridiculous email would feel if you need a gmail account to email gmail peeps, a microsoft account to email outlook peeps, and another separate account to communicate with people in every mom and pop community. Imagine not being able to export your address book in an industry standard format. Imagine not being able to use whatever third party client you want to access your own data.
I would be highly surprised if world leaders communicated anything sensitive via DM on Twitter.
From https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
Not directly a world leader, and even Trump Sr. was still the nominee, but not far removed from the scenario you describe.
I would be highly surprised if world leaders communicated anything sensitive via DM on Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…
How exactly do you propose to split up Twitter? Split the userbase into 100 groups? Who goes in which group? And what happens when people want to switch groups... ultimately coalescing in a single node? Because, you know, network effects. I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution!
Schneier's point is the threat of a malicious actor starting a war by hijacking a politician's Twitter is non-zero. People like you and me opting out of Twitter is not an effective solution to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…
You seem to talk about monopolies as if it was a bad thing. And I get it that you don't like Twitter being a closed platform. Me neither. It's not ideal, but it's still more user friendly than Mastodon (sadly). I wouldn't shed a tear if Twitter went bankrupt either, but I don't necessarily think it would lead to a better world (Facebook would be a stronger monopoly and that , I think, would make things worse).
guilty as charged