> However, they’ve consolidated themselves as quasi-monopolies
I don't understand the recent trend of mentioning a field being a "monopoly" while then discussing Twitter, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon all in that very same article.
Social networks definitely benefit from economies of scale as larger platforms enable interaction with more users. But consumers have many, many choices for social networking, including nearly every website and app that adds social networking features.
It reminds me of the time a decade or two ago when the government accused three companies of having a monopoly on "super premium ice cream." There are thousands of suppliers of ice cream, and hundreds of suppliers of "premium ice cream", but only three suppliers of "super premium ice cream."
Certainly if you artificially define any market small enough you can declare a monopoly. But there are so many sites, apps, and options to interact socially with others online that it seems absurd to imply that anyone has a monopoly on social networking.
Bender · 5h ago
Any platform that reaches a sufficient size will be taken over by powerful people regardless of who was originally running it. Alternatively those in power will destroy it or influence enough public opinion to make using it taboo. With time all large platforms devolve into echo chambers and bot / AI slopyards no matter how good they started out or what the original intentions were.
To me the behavior of publicly owned is exactly what Twitter had become given all the former FBI agents working inside of it and complying with requests. The response to that was someone with a lot of money taking it over to use as their playground in the faux name of free speech. Neither of those creates an unbiased platform for all people to discuss ideas. It devolved into crap and then further devolved into a different scent of crap. Once a platform steps in the bog of eternal stench there is no ridding itself of that smell.
MithrilTuxedo · 4h ago
If it's all under one hierarchy controlling it, that's true. If the platform is decentralized and the development of the platform is independent from its use, that vulnerability from the top doesn't exist.
I'm thinking of public platforms like the internet or Bitcoin or Mastodon. Twitter isn't public, so there is no way to know what influence other entities have on it. The same is true of any individual using any platform, but there are too many individuals. We want control over the use of a platform to be divided across as many entities as possible.
There is no unbiased platform for all people to discuss ideas in nature. I don't know why anyone thinks they can create one. You can't increase communication by raising the noise floor.
Bender · 4h ago
There is no unbiased platform for all people to discuss ideas in nature. I don't know why anyone thinks they can create one. You can't increase communication by raising the noise floor.
Absolutely agree. I create tiny communities that are locked down. Any sign of invasion is responded to with Mjölnir. All the big platforms will ultimately become places for the masses to be manipulated and bad actors to hide behind keyboards or bots with little or no consequences.
belter · 5h ago
> Any platform that reaches a sufficient size will be taken over by powerful people regardless of who was originally running it.
I am not sure a social network, run buy the democratic votes and non-profit board of Swiss cantons or Danish town halls...Will be equivalent to one governed by a semi-psychotic billionaire with daddy's issues, who runs his own Lebensborn operation...
Bender · 4h ago
run buy the democratic votes and non-profit board of Swiss cantons or Danish town halls
Maybe if they keep the site small enough and only influencing specific communities that share similar beliefs then it could last for a while, especially if it's locked down to people from those communities. This is just my opinion but if it is too open and inclusive there will be invasions by manipulators. Those operating it would have to be brave enough to just instantly whack the accounts belonging to agent provocateurs, spammers, trolls and shills with little or no explanation. Perhaps even require people to register at the town halls and to return to the town hall if their account is whacked. Anyone doing shenanigans would not be able to hide behind a keyboard, proxy or VPN.
riehwvfbk · 4h ago
And in doing so, ensure that the network is too boring for anyone to use, except for the local flower shop posting its ads.
Bender · 4h ago
And in doing so, ensure that the network is too boring for anyone to use, except for the local flower shop posting its ads.
Agreed. That's kindof my point though. The only way to keep out the dingdongs is to lock it down. Leave it open and exciting then it quickly develops a bad smell from all the manipulators, trolls, shills, agent provocateurs, etc...
riehwvfbk · 4h ago
Oh, you'll still get dingdongs, in addition to the flower shop. Ever attended something like an HOA meeting? It'll be something like that.
There will still be the local "dictator" mod coming up with a new rule for what's not an allowed discussion topic this week. There will be a rotating cast of the dictator's supporters and exiles. They will all be local retirees with nothing better to do.
Bender · 4h ago
Oh, you'll still get dingdongs, in addition to the flower shop. Ever attended something like an HOA meeting? It'll be something like that.
I also agree with that. At least I will have removed 98% of the dingdongs. Nothing is ever perfect. And yeah I made the mistake once of buying a home in an HOA. Never again. The HOA officers were always without exception people that wanted to be in government and hold power over people but would never have been permitted to hold any position.
There will still be the local "dictator" mod coming up with a new rule for what's not an allowed discussion topic this week.
Yup, that's any community big or small. In a big place like Twitter everyone is impacted by a single cult of personality. In small communities if they are a bad dictator their site will be mostly vacant and people will form their own thing. I think that is ultimately the right path, people forming their own things. Not perfect, nothing is.
The official public funded platform should be locked down and keep everything on topic and on track. People should register in person at the office of whomever is funding it. If the public platform develops a cult of personality then the political figure power tripping could be at risk of being voted out of office or their department de-funded. If nobody is using the platform I would hope it would quickly lose its funding. USAID was an example of governments hiding behind NGO's to shape public opinion.
HN is an example of what I call a partially locked down community. This site would not scale to billions of people of course. Something that big would have to be fully locked down.
harshitaneja · 4h ago
I am curious as to how are you envisioning such a platform be funded and operated? Is it government(which country? or a coalition?) funded and operated by an "independent" board. Or something more akin to Wikimedia Foundation where the public from around the world fund the endowment and that combined with volunteers help run the platform?
hunglee2 · 7h ago
if not, then we at least need indigenous social networks, rather than ones controlled by foreign states. Dependency on the US internet was cool for a long while but its national security priority for every country to run their own, walled off internet, ideally one which is nonetheless interoperable with others.
MilnerRoute · 6h ago
I was reading a biography about PBS and Mister Rogers - and it's fascinating to see the high hopes everyone had for a non-commercial TV channel. TV was a new medium, and the idea was to create high-quality alternative programming - specifically to address problems they were seeing.
egberts1 · 5h ago
That is ... until corporate donor started donating to PBS with stipulations attached.
I don't understand the recent trend of mentioning a field being a "monopoly" while then discussing Twitter, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon all in that very same article.
Social networks definitely benefit from economies of scale as larger platforms enable interaction with more users. But consumers have many, many choices for social networking, including nearly every website and app that adds social networking features.
It reminds me of the time a decade or two ago when the government accused three companies of having a monopoly on "super premium ice cream." There are thousands of suppliers of ice cream, and hundreds of suppliers of "premium ice cream", but only three suppliers of "super premium ice cream."
Certainly if you artificially define any market small enough you can declare a monopoly. But there are so many sites, apps, and options to interact socially with others online that it seems absurd to imply that anyone has a monopoly on social networking.
To me the behavior of publicly owned is exactly what Twitter had become given all the former FBI agents working inside of it and complying with requests. The response to that was someone with a lot of money taking it over to use as their playground in the faux name of free speech. Neither of those creates an unbiased platform for all people to discuss ideas. It devolved into crap and then further devolved into a different scent of crap. Once a platform steps in the bog of eternal stench there is no ridding itself of that smell.
I'm thinking of public platforms like the internet or Bitcoin or Mastodon. Twitter isn't public, so there is no way to know what influence other entities have on it. The same is true of any individual using any platform, but there are too many individuals. We want control over the use of a platform to be divided across as many entities as possible.
There is no unbiased platform for all people to discuss ideas in nature. I don't know why anyone thinks they can create one. You can't increase communication by raising the noise floor.
Absolutely agree. I create tiny communities that are locked down. Any sign of invasion is responded to with Mjölnir. All the big platforms will ultimately become places for the masses to be manipulated and bad actors to hide behind keyboards or bots with little or no consequences.
I am not sure a social network, run buy the democratic votes and non-profit board of Swiss cantons or Danish town halls...Will be equivalent to one governed by a semi-psychotic billionaire with daddy's issues, who runs his own Lebensborn operation...
Maybe if they keep the site small enough and only influencing specific communities that share similar beliefs then it could last for a while, especially if it's locked down to people from those communities. This is just my opinion but if it is too open and inclusive there will be invasions by manipulators. Those operating it would have to be brave enough to just instantly whack the accounts belonging to agent provocateurs, spammers, trolls and shills with little or no explanation. Perhaps even require people to register at the town halls and to return to the town hall if their account is whacked. Anyone doing shenanigans would not be able to hide behind a keyboard, proxy or VPN.
Agreed. That's kindof my point though. The only way to keep out the dingdongs is to lock it down. Leave it open and exciting then it quickly develops a bad smell from all the manipulators, trolls, shills, agent provocateurs, etc...
There will still be the local "dictator" mod coming up with a new rule for what's not an allowed discussion topic this week. There will be a rotating cast of the dictator's supporters and exiles. They will all be local retirees with nothing better to do.
I also agree with that. At least I will have removed 98% of the dingdongs. Nothing is ever perfect. And yeah I made the mistake once of buying a home in an HOA. Never again. The HOA officers were always without exception people that wanted to be in government and hold power over people but would never have been permitted to hold any position.
There will still be the local "dictator" mod coming up with a new rule for what's not an allowed discussion topic this week.
Yup, that's any community big or small. In a big place like Twitter everyone is impacted by a single cult of personality. In small communities if they are a bad dictator their site will be mostly vacant and people will form their own thing. I think that is ultimately the right path, people forming their own things. Not perfect, nothing is.
The official public funded platform should be locked down and keep everything on topic and on track. People should register in person at the office of whomever is funding it. If the public platform develops a cult of personality then the political figure power tripping could be at risk of being voted out of office or their department de-funded. If nobody is using the platform I would hope it would quickly lose its funding. USAID was an example of governments hiding behind NGO's to shape public opinion.
HN is an example of what I call a partially locked down community. This site would not scale to billions of people of course. Something that big would have to be fully locked down.