Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users? • Hacker News Board

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #97

rsynnott wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's worth _considering_, but it does not appear to be true. See reddit; reddit has gone through a number of waves of banning abominable subreddits. In general the result is that the most extreme members create a nightmarish reddit clone which no-one else cares about, the rest disperse.

How would you know when the very existence of these new silos is hidden from you? This is like saying "our model recognizes 99% of the AI generated images", but it leave out that you don't know the actual amount since when your model does not recognize that an image in the wild was generated by AI you dont know that it was generated by an AI.

... I mean, it's not hidden at all. If you want (you probably do not; they are astonishingly obsessive and horrible) to find the alternative reddit clones that people fled to when fatpeoplehate or the Nazi subreddits or the worst of the TERF subreddits or whatever were banned, well, they're right there, they are not a secret.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#109

Post by jcarrano » Thu, Apr 13, 2023, 6:37 PM UTC

Short answer: if it could it would already be.

First, no one wants to move away from the "real" thing. The alternatives are there and there, even things line NOSTR where you own your own identity and not a server.

Then, and most importantly, the fact that users do not make the rules is part of the appeal of twitter, even if users themselves do not recognize it. It forces the most dissenting people together on the same platform. If they had to agree on rules, then either everything would be banned, or islands of incompatible moderation policies would form.