[aserafini]

I'd like to see the 'Wikipedia' of social media emerge: a centrally managed, decentrally moderated, non-profit, 'nagware' funded social media.

Most users don't care about federation or decentralisation. They want low-cost and convenience but they're starting to realise they don't want it at the expense of their mental health or privacy.

Nothing can be simpler for the end user than a centrally managed service: I just go to wikipedia.org and start reading/writing. Censorship issues are avoided because moderation is decentralised: the site has a governance framework.

So I believe there's a space for a similar concept in social media. There's no question social media fulfils a genuine human need. But the profit motive inevitably forces commercial social medias to make decisions that detriment the user. For example, 'engagement': a santised term for addiction. Is it good for the user that social media should be continually engineered to increase 'engagement'? A non-profit has no such conflict of interest. It may even take steps to reduce engagement if it believes users are at risk of depression, addiction, anxiety etc.

I would love to talk to anyone who has ideas about bootstrapping something like that (email address in profile).