[__MatrixMan__]

Because I don't think the problem has to do with who owns the platform, but rather its that the platform's design relies on infrastructure that can be owned in the first place.

The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil, being in a powerful position made them that way.

I'll be rooting for this user owned thing to stay true to its goals, but if it's shaped like the other ones in all ways but its ownership structure, then I won't be expecting it to do so.

[swed420]

I believe that threat could be prevented with the suggestions in the article.

> The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil

Um, not all of them:

> On July 6 instant messages by a 19-year Zuck appeared on Twitter, along with a link to a 2010 Business Insider story about an exchange that took place shortly after the Facebook founder launched the social-media phenomenon in his dorm room.

> “Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard just me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS,” Zuckerberg’s message says.

> “What? How’d you manage that one?” a friend asks.

> “People just submitted it,” Zuckerberg responds. “I don’t know why they 'trust me.' Dumb fucks.”

[__MatrixMan__]

Touche re: Zuck, but I still think that even had he started a saint, he'd be a sinner by now.

[swed420]

True, which is why you'd need well defined safeguards in place from the very beginning, with high visibility into the organization that you normally wouldn't find in a closed, for-profit business.

[__MatrixMan__]

You mean like OpenAI back when it was a nonprofit?

[swed420]

So figure out what they did wrong. It's going to have to be more original than the easily subverted traditional "nonprofit" model.

[__MatrixMan__]

Maybe the right lawyer is out there for that challenge. But legal code is running on compromised infrastructure these days so I think we should plan to operate as if the law is against us.