Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#261

Post by comfypotato » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 5:45 PM UTC

mym1990 wrote: post #83

What if, and hear me out: we ditch the idea of a better replacement social network and just ditch the concept in general? Let’s go back to not being bombarded by ads every 3rd post, to not getting lost in massive echo chambers, to not doom scrolling for 20-40% of our waking hours, being locked into mega platforms, etc... Is the proposition of “being more connected” really worth the downsides?

They bring way too much value for this. They’ve introduced a slew of “new” problems, and these problems are bad. The problems are still outweighed by the benefits. I enjoy the connection social media gives me to people outside of geographical area and outside the sphere of who I’m comfortable phone calling.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#262

Post by comfypotato » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 5:49 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #189

mym1990 wrote: post #83

What if, and hear me out: we ditch the idea of a better replacement social network and just ditch the concept in general? Let’s go back to not being bombarded by ads every 3rd post, to not getting lost in massive echo chambers, to not doom scrolling for 20-40% of our waking hours, being locked into mega platforms, etc... Is the proposition of “being more connected” really worth the downsides?

> Is the proposition of “being more connected” really worth the downsides? And 'proposition' is the right word to use, since its really just the promise of social networks that people like. In practice it has not worked as a means of connecting people to each other. Certainly not better than the alternatives it replaced. We should call the experiment a failure. I'm all for getting rid of social networks, especially g…

I’m over 30 and this rings false for me. Social networks introduced problems at a scale that they hadn’t really been seen before, and it has awful downsides. That being said, the basic concept is nice.

My parents, for example, are much more connected to their relatives overseas. More so than they’re relatives, they’re connected to their relatives’ friend groups. The conversations that take place now when they visit are better. They’re more in touch with more lives.

The ads, the fomo, the general fakeness of it all is awful. But the benefits still outweigh the negatives.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#263

Post by namaria » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #154

OgAstorga wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies build what consumers want. You aren’t locked into Heroin. Don’t use it. Consumers vote with their dollars. So, if you’ve got a better idea, synthesize it and see if they come.

I get they both are "addictive" given the broad sense of the term. Yes, your brain gets a little reward with each refresh. But I don't think it's fair to compare the addictive nature of social media to heroin. (Let alone their impact on people's lives. But even putting that aside.) Do you really think social media and heroin should be regulated at all similarly?

Yeah social media is more like alcohol. Feels good in the moment, leaves a hangover if you stay away for any meaningful amount of time, is completely legal and generates a lot of profits and tax revenue. We all know it's bad for us and society at large, yet most of us can't stop using it. Can lubricate social relations but also potentiates abuse.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#264

Post by shaunxcode » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 5:52 PM UTC

This is a reification of that chatgpt meme of a meat company trying to appeal to vegans by launching a new vegan meat made of real meat.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#265

Post by comfypotato » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

browningstreet wrote: post #191

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that social networks are optional ? No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use them.

Social networks changed the world, and are now predominant in the world we live in. It's like when someone pollutes water. Our society and culture are water, and social networks are... pollutants. It's fine and normal and good to want to look at the superfund site that is our global culture and want to push social networks out of the very-toxic pollutant it happens to be, and into something we can all abide, even for…

The pollutants are people as they’ve always been.

Social media is a natural progression of society. It has all the same positives and negatives of an local social structure.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#266

Post by giantrobot » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

salmonellaeater wrote: post #31

> Individual servers would let different groups set their own community standards, though likely with a “floor” of rules set by Meta, in a fashion similar to how Reddit’s individual communities work. This is not praise. Reddit bans people for expressing widely held beliefs. Subreddit mods are required to enforce the site-wide rules regardless of the subreddit's own preferences. As another commenter put it [1], the pr…

> But users should always have the final say on whose posts they view.

The difficulty there is the end users are not hosting or distributing content. Some server(s) need to host content. No one can be forced to host content. A host is always going to be the final arbiter of what content is ultimately available.

Even if someone wants to run a Mastodon (or whatever) instance filled with Nazi content no one else is obligated to federate with them.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#267

Post by akira2501 » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

mym1990 wrote: post #83

What if, and hear me out: we ditch the idea of a better replacement social network and just ditch the concept in general? Let’s go back to not being bombarded by ads every 3rd post, to not getting lost in massive echo chambers, to not doom scrolling for 20-40% of our waking hours, being locked into mega platforms, etc... Is the proposition of “being more connected” really worth the downsides?

This puts the cart before the horse. Otherwise, you seem to be assuming that all people on social networks were somehow tricked into being there.

They're there for a reason. It just so happens that this current implementation of entertainment is particularly popular. Is that because they lack other options or because this is actually prime entertainment? Or is it because it's essentially free and mildly fulfilling and socially useful for people?

Either way I doubt a "solution" is to essentially "make it illegal."

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#268

Post by throwway120385 » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

gretch wrote: post #193

crabbone wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are optional in the same way how postal service is optional. Sure, you may just drive / sail / fly to whoever you want your package delivered... chances are you'd rebel against this seeing how everyone else simply drops their package by the nearest collection point. Social networks today provide service beyond simply catching up with friends and family. They serve as front desks of companies' customer support, t…

I think people fall into this delusion, but if you can peel yourself out of it, you’d find it’s not really true at all. One of the best politically served groups in the US are elderly evangelical Christians - this doesn’t come from being on social media.

Indeed, I think you could actually argue that social networks produce a lot of hot air but very little actual action. People seem to burn themselves out on political discussion and ripping on each other for having different opinions, but then they seem to do very little actual participating in the political process. Places like Facebook and NextDoor suck all the air out of the room for a lot of peoples' political ambitions.

In contrast I'm finding that elected officials, aside from some gaffes here and there, are mostly receptive at the local level to the things we're asking for. If people spent the time they spend ripping on each other on social media instead navigating the bureaucracy and talking to the people that work there they could probably effect some meaningful change.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#269

Post by vitiral » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:10 PM UTC

mym1990 wrote: post #83

What if, and hear me out: we ditch the idea of a better replacement social network and just ditch the concept in general? Let’s go back to not being bombarded by ads every 3rd post, to not getting lost in massive echo chambers, to not doom scrolling for 20-40% of our waking hours, being locked into mega platforms, etc... Is the proposition of “being more connected” really worth the downsides?

Welcome to hacker news, the place that is definitely not a social network.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#270

Post by giantrobot » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #195

exitb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's roughly how Mastodon works. Each instance is responsible for moderation of their own users. If an instance does not meet arbitrary standards of moderation, other instances may choose not to federate with them, but nothing can stop willing instances from federating.

Unfortunately that's ended up with a netsplit between covenanted and free servers, some servers will even de-federate you for federating with the "wrong" servers. So the only way to access the whole fediverse is either have multiple accounts, or run your own server.

You say all that like it's a problem. If I run a gay furry porn instance, like wall to wall kitsune dicks, why should anyone federate with me? If you want fox dicks you come to my server. If you don't you avoid my server.

You shouldn't have to see a bunch of raunchy furry gifs at work to decide you don't want to see those and block me manually. Federation should be a totally voluntary thing between servers. Only instances with compatible policies should federate.

Accessing the whole fediverse should only ever be a client problem in logging into multiple instances. Instances shouldn't be expected to just federate with everyone.