[throwaway894345]

For me it’s that it seems increasingly absurd that a handful of companies control such a large share of speech. I’m not a leftist even by American standards, but I see the current social media landscape as a privatization of the public square and this actually is a problem space that can be solved by the right protocols. We were blessed with open networking and web protocols many decades ago; we should also have open social protocols IMHO.

[tmottabr]

The problem is that social media is not and was never designed to be a replacement to public square..

Social media started as tool to allow people to stay in touch after their time together came to an end and eventually evolved\merged with forums as a tool to bring people with similar interest together.

The thing we have today that kind resemble a public square is a side effect of then needing to make money, that they decided to do by using ads.

In order to make more money with ads they need to keep people around for longer so they started taking content and spreading around to random people.

Kind like a public square but not really because you need to keep advertisers happy, so you cannot allow any speech in your platform that displeases the advertisers, or at least you need to ensure ads will not show next to speech that make advertisers unhappy or else they are going away and you now have a money problem (exactly twitter situation).

Public square is a end to end relation.. You go somewhere and speak and whoever is in ear shoot listen, if they don't want to listen they get away, if a lot of people that does not want to listen get together they make you leave, but you can always come back later.

The moment you add any kind of platform in the middle, specially one with an algorithm that decide what you should see, you are now bound to the platform rules and biases. And that is no longer a public square.

Social media today is, in my opinion, more akin to personal ads or letters to the editor in a newspaper then to a public square. It will spread your speech further then a public square but is bound to the rules and biases of the newspaper publishing then.

And I don't think any protocol can solve this. All a protocol can do is allow you to created biased silos where different types of speech live and they might or might not federate to other silos.

Basically federation allow you to turn social media in glorified forums, but it will never really replace public square.

[CuriousCosmic]

> Social media started as tool to allow people to stay in touch after their time together came to an end and eventually evolved\merged with forums as a tool to bring people with similar interest together.

This actually isn't really true. It may be true for social media in it's current incarnation but the origin of social media, the bulletin board systems/BBS (and their progenitor the Community Memory) started as a means for hobbyists to share information and coordinate projects.

It would only be as BBS grew in popularity that they became a kind of digital public square/3rd place. Then with their decline, the graphical web/http based hobbyist forums (and eventually image boards) would rise repeating the pattern.

It would only be the modern incarnation of social media that would originate as an attempt to serve as a "digital rolodex for friends and family" but really out of all the incarnations of social media that would be a relatively short lived oddity before folding back into the hobbyist forums -> public square pattern.

[tmottabr]

But what is being discussed is social media current incarnation and that is exactly what i talking about. I even kind address your point when i said that it evolved\merge into forums, that were themselves an evolution of bulletin boards that in turn were evolution of older concepts.

But i don't see BBS or forums really as a digital public square anymore then current social media is. They were really silos were you would find people with similar interest, but was ultimately subjected to the will of the board owner or its moderators.

I see those more as an digital version of clubs then a public square.

Also the modern social media version of hobbyist forums\bulletin boards was also a short lived one and has being replaced by the addictive algorithm aimed at capturing our attention as much as possible that we have today.

I do not see anything in the past that could resemble what we have today, the closet parallel would be addictive drugs.

Surely some of the old community building aspects are still there in some platforms, but the biggest problem is that now we are seen a new generation of platforms being born from start aimed at the single goal of capturing our attention and get us hooked.

[throwaway894345]

Semantic arguments about what is and isn't a public square aside, the salient point is that an enormous share of our national and international dialogues about culture and politics take place on a handful of social media platforms. Those platforms have sufficient power that state actors _indirectly_ use them to influence elections (and if the platforms can be _indirectly_ manipulated to influence elections, then the people with hands directly on the levers of these platforms can necessarily directly influence those elections).

The goal isn't, as you suggest, to eliminate bias, it's to democratize control. Consequently "all a protocol can do is allow you to created biased silos where different types of speech live which may or may not federate" is a perfectly good outcome! The goal posts are not and never were "eliminate bias" or "force everyone to hear opinions they don't want to hear".

[tmottabr]

Well, silos being a perfect good outcome is debatable.. I for one don't agree.. But that is already possible today, just not at the escale of most social medias..

But let's be realistic, that will never happen..

A enormous amount of dialog is taking place in just a few social media because that is the majority of the people are.. That is not a problem you solve by just throwing more tech into it..

And that is part of the problem, while people share the same space kind of equally, their ideas do not because of the biases of the platform.. And people end-up being flood with one only one side of the discussion whatever they like it or not..

Everything that bluesky aim to do already exist in some form or another but it never got traction simple because people are not there..

In my opinion a much more realistic future is countries starting to ban foreign social medias, as it is already starting to happen. Not that this would be any better then what we have today..

Truth is that is is an extremely complex problem with no simple solution..

[throwaway894345]

> Well, silos being a perfect good outcome is debatable.. I for one don't agree.. But that is already possible today, just not at the escale of most social medias..

The goal isn't to produce silos, it's to distribute control. A bunch of subreddits under the control of Reddit Inc isn't "distributed control" even if Reddit allows moderators a degree of autonomy.

> But let's be realistic, that will never happen..

That's vapid defeatism. It absolutely _can_ happen, and we know this because plenty of other layers of the stack are decentralized (e.g., the Internet, the web, etc) and the decentralized social media world is growing year over year. While it still constitutes a small share of the overall social media landscape, these things are nonlinear, so all it takes is a single inflection point which could well be BlueSky or similar.

> Everything that bluesky aim to do already exist in some form or another but it never got traction simple because people are not there..

No social media app got traction until it did. I'm not saying BlueSky will be _the_ app that gets big, but "apps like BlueSky haven't made it big yet, therefor BlueSky won't make it big" could have applied as easily to every early social media network. Moreover, the Fediverse is already pretty large and it's a fair bit more tedious and less polished than BlueSky. One could easily imagine a privacy-concerned polity like the EU, or some Nordic state standing up their own AT proto instance for their citizens, which could serve as an inflection point.

[tmottabr]

the difference is that when you distribute control you also distribute the people and the discussions..

if instead of reddit you had thousands smaller sites\forums replacing each subreddit, that in principle achieve the same things as reddit does today, it would not have near the impact on society that reddit has..

today everyone is together in a sense participating in the same discussion and that is were the impact from social media in society comes from..

when you spread the control, you also spread the people and if you spread the people you also spread the discussions.. so instead of having one big conversation you have hundreds or even thousands of smaller ones.. and that does not have the same impact..

going even further, people tend to look for places with other like minded people, so you also end up with echo chambers where you are only exposed to the side of the conversation that you already agree with.. and very little of the other sides leak trough.. that diminishes the discussions even more.. there is no point in having a debate when the other people agree with you..

we kind of have a mix of both today happening in many fields, one in special is politics.. each side of the political spectrum have their own smaller groups acting as echo chambers to their members and it is where they coordinate but both groups also clash on the open social medias.. likely this is also happening on other places but not at the same scale..

and i am not trying to be defeatist, it is just a matter of analyzing how people behave or have behaved in the past..

people today are on the social medias they are because it is where they have being for a long time and they stay out of inertia.. add to that that those are the places where the people they want to see are as well, whatever that be friends, famous people, random content creators or whatever.. and in turn those other people are on those same social medias because that is where the people that watch then are..

so beside the inertia you also have a chicken and egg situation.. people do not move to other social media because there is no content for them to consume.. and there is no content because there is no one to consume it..

the behavior that we have seen happen for most social medias is a shift across generations, where one generation want to escape the previous one eyes and then the previous one follow.. people started on facebook, and if memory serves me right, the next generations moved to instagram to escape their parents that where on facebook, eventually the parents moved to instagram, then to snapschat and so on, now they are on tiktok and we are already seen older generations moving there as well.. likely in a few years kids then will be on the next one whatever it is and people will follow..

now, there are a few special and\or niche cases, like reddit or deviantart, but i don't see those going anywhere anytime soon, we will have to see what impact AI has on those communities, but i think it is still too soon to tell..

Another one is twitter that i consider a special case because of how people use it.. majority of people there only follow big accounts, follow news, current events, etc.. it is a place where most people only consume and even when they post it is usually only to interact with those big accounts or events..

Now.. lets imagine that twitter blow up today and be gone tomorrow, and with Elon we never know.. But if that ever happen what i think will happen at first is that people will spread out but over time they will flock back into one single platform, it could very well be bluesky, or threads, or something else entirely.. but that will happen organically over time..

and i will go as far as to say that the platforms will have very little influence on the outcome of this.. and that whoever comes on top will be mostly because they were luck and not because they did something super right and\or the other did something super wrong..

also, i believe that whoever comes next to replace twitter will face the same challenges that twitter have, regardless of how much jack want and works to avoid it, because 99% of the people just want something that works, they do not want to worry about content moderation, federation and whatever..

now, i do see people moving away from twitter in the short to medium term for a number of reasons.. it could either happen fast because it is blocked somewhere or it could happen slowly because every day people is slowly getting feed up with it.. or even a mix of both..

but the point is, some external factor is making people move.. Elon making twitter bad in some people opinion is making then want to move, if Elon had never bought Twitter then people would not be moving..

And if that move really happens then my guess is on either Bluesky or Threads coming on top, and not because of any technical aspect on those platforms but because of Jack Dorsey was behind Bluesky and Mark Zuckerberg is behind Threads and it is know that people look for what is familiar to then.. And we will end up back where we started just with a different name..

I guess i was overly simplistic when i said that it will never happen when really i meant is that it will never happen naturally.. it can happen because an external force as it has happened before.. And like i said, i do see a chance of countries starting to ban foreign controlled social media and we could very well move to a situation where each country have their own instance and those instances start being federated to each other..

I personally don't thing the tech to make that happen is friendly enough for the non technical crowd yet, but we are surely moving in that direction..