This creates a demand for alternatives. Once a community moves to a system like Mastodon, that creates a demand for that system.
No one cares about myspace anymore. In 10 years, noone will care about twitter. That's the nature of technology.
This creates a demand for alternatives. Once a community moves to a system like Mastodon, that creates a demand for that system.
No one cares about myspace anymore. In 10 years, noone will care about twitter. That's the nature of technology.
I think this is untrue. I think social media sites are removing people at .1% outlier belief system that most people deem disgusting enough to warrant taking action to not have associated with their brand.
Your "100%" implies that everyone on say Facebook has to have the same belief system, when that obviously isn't true. You can state many belief system on Facebook, except hateful ones that target swaths of people.
This won't create a Myspace situation, it'll create a 8chan/voat situation.
I don't think that's true. Tommy Robinson's beliefs about Muslims are held by a good deal more than 0.1% of the UK population, yet he was banned from Twitter.
Do you have a source for that number?
But I had a look at specific opinion poll results and this one https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Tommy_Robinson suggests that 17.4% of people see Tommy Robinson favourably.
In any case, I feel this is splitting hairs over numbers. If 30% of the UK hated Muslims, Facebook still wouldn't be requiring "100% silicon valley values" to use the platform. You just can't post racist stuff on it. I.e. those racists have other aspects of their worldview they'd be welcome to bring to the table.
Me too, currently coming up to 50 years.
> https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Tommy_Robinson
That's favourability of Mr Robinson, not his beliefs though.
True, but 17.4% is a much larger number than 0.1%
If they won’t care about Twitter, why should they care about an open source clone with no users?
It’s also not true of all tech platforms. It’s not true of desktop operating systems for example. Today the desktop is dominated by Apple and Microsoft. Who dominated it 30 years ago? So there’s nothing inevitable about these things.
You’re just assuming the alternatives will have no users. That’s the worst argument ever.
Certainly that got Google search and Gmail started.
If Twitter gets better at filtering, maybe they will be more popular?
This has happened to some extent with Voat, and if there's really a demand for like minded people to communicate without having their discourse contaminated by opposing partisans then I'm sure the same could happen here.
That is a flat-out lie, unless you disagree with the terms of service. Find me one person that was booted that wasn’t booted for violating the ToS.
Perhaps you could explain the case of Elizabeth Heng, a candidate in CA of the US Congress?
As for your example, she violated the ToS. They then changed their minds. I'm not seeing the grave injustice you're claiming.
A candidate from a mainstream party for US Congress with mainstream views creates an ad about her past that is true and historical, and that gets banned.
Hiding behind vague TOS does not cut it.
Mastodon has a similar feel in that the content is amateurish and free.
As an anecdote, I use chaos.social and they are throttling signups because there are too many new signups. Maybe you will be surprised.
Will it be the biggest social phenomenon? Probably not. But it already has the critical mass to keep funding its continued development, and lot of interesting voices, if you know where to look.