Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
1–10 of 356 posts
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#2The main issue with WhatsApp as the primary platform of communication is that it’s exclusive. You can’t actually switch to Signal and continue with business because you’d need everyone to switch with you. Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts.
WhatsApp cannot be pointed to another network, it’s total vendor lock-in. Today happened at a non-critical time. If this happened during a hurricane, or any other disaster, the critical nature would be exposed.
Right now we’re just amused, but the implications are real. Facebook has way more accountability in all of this than just, as Zuckerberg said ‘Senator, we sell ads’.
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#3The main issue with WhatsApp as the primary platform of communication is that it’s exclusive. You can’t actually switch to Signal and continue with business because you’d need everyone to switch with you. Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts. WhatsApp cannot be pointed to another network, it’s total vendor lock-in. Today happened…
> Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts.
Not going to happen without legislation. Maybe not even with it.
Industrial standardization was driven by the US Army around and after the time of the Civil War. The Army wanted rifle parts to be replaceable by any spare of the same type, not only those from the same batch as the gun.
There is no large single buyer with "social" apps, and the incentives for vendors are to try to lock in their customers.
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#4The main issue with WhatsApp as the primary platform of communication is that it’s exclusive. You can’t actually switch to Signal and continue with business because you’d need everyone to switch with you. Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts. WhatsApp cannot be pointed to another network, it’s total vendor lock-in. Today happened…
That's why instant messaging needs open standards like Matrix, which make switching apps and provider a nobrainer, because it almost wouldn't matter which one you would loose.
Additionally, only one of many service proviers would be seriously affected if a service goes down.
matrix.org
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#5The main issue with WhatsApp as the primary platform of communication is that it’s exclusive. You can’t actually switch to Signal and continue with business because you’d need everyone to switch with you. Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts. WhatsApp cannot be pointed to another network, it’s total vendor lock-in. Today happened…
That's why instant messaging needs open standards like Matrix, which make switching apps and provider a nobrainer, because it almost wouldn't matter which one you would loose. Additionally, only one of many service proviers would be seriously affected if a service goes down. matrix.org
...or use Tox and no service providers would be affected because it's 100% decentralized.
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#6The main issue with WhatsApp as the primary platform of communication is that it’s exclusive. You can’t actually switch to Signal and continue with business because you’d need everyone to switch with you. Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts. WhatsApp cannot be pointed to another network, it’s total vendor lock-in. Today happened…
That's why instant messaging needs open standards like Matrix, which make switching apps and provider a nobrainer, because it almost wouldn't matter which one you would loose. Additionally, only one of many service proviers would be seriously affected if a service goes down. matrix.org
SMS is sort of that, right, at least a crude form?
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#7Late last year here in Australia, I remember ACT Health announced a major change to the territory's COVID restrictions exclusively on Facebook Live one afternoon and didn't update their website until the following morning.
Highly inconvenient for someone without Facebook looking to visit the territory.
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#8Why do we even let corporations own things that we consider "utilities"? Seems like a case of people being perfectly happy with using a free service until it breaks, then it's all a shitstorm. If WhatsApp's mere existence is enough to warrant deregulation, what does that mean for platforms like iMessage, which fundamentally fill the same role?
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#9Why do we even let corporations own things that we consider "utilities"? Seems like a case of people being perfectly happy with using a free service until it breaks, then it's all a shitstorm. If WhatsApp's mere existence is enough to warrant deregulation, what does that mean for platforms like iMessage, which fundamentally fill the same role?
It's not a utility, and it shouldn't be considered one.
Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why instant messaging needs open standards like Matrix, which make switching apps and provider a nobrainer, because it almost wouldn't matter which one you would loose. Additionally, only one of many service proviers would be seriously affected if a service goes down. matrix.org
SMS is sort of that, right, at least a crude form?
Yes, why shouldn't the next standard (like 6G) introduce support for a better messaging network than SMS? With group chats and image support. Each carrier could decide if you can send unlimited messages or a few thousand. In any case it would remove this dependency on a single company.
Edit: Just realized there's RCS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services