The world is a terrible place right now
wilwheaton.net
wilwheaton.net
EDIT: For more context: https://medium.com/@AmberEnderton/wil-wheaton-has-a-listenin...
I mean, the self-hosted website - where this blog is posted - is exactly that. I don't quite follow his desire to find a third party community. He seems to want a service that meets his standards of what a social network should be without realising that he has complete control of his own content and how people interact with him on his own website. Interestingly, where he disabled comments.
A blog, even with comments enabled, is less effective at that than Twitter was. (Certainly not ineffective, but as Wheaton has had long experience on both Twitter and maintaining a blog, I think we can conclude he wants something he doesn't get from blogging.)
The question I’m posing is, why are we so attached to our identities online?
If an angry mob follows us around online then why not use a pseudonym and let our posts be judged on their own merits, instead of our reputation?
What people put online and how they convey things are more about what people are innately than about putting real names and photos around.
Putting real names and identities also exposes people (those vulnerable due to circumstances or those who’re against commonly held notions in their social setting).
Also see: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-na...
Why is there an angry mob in the first place? Why aren't people doing what they can to stop the angry mob? Why does Wheaton need to use pseudonym in order to discuss things in public?
Nor do I understand how you infer that he want to use his own name because he wants his reputation affect the judgement of others.
In his blog postings, he often makes references to his history, including on ST:TNG. He'll need more than a pseudonym to avoid the angry mob - he'll also need to exclude any personally identifiable information. That is hard, and very different than his normal style.
In other words, a pseudonym doesn't really obscure one's identity for people who want to express their identity online, because identify is far more than just a name.
For that matter, is it really that bad to have reputation? After time, even a pseudonym will gain reputation - are we supposed to reset our pseudonyms time and time again to shed any reputation gain?
The current result is that Wil Wheaton has chosen to abstain from a certain social network and an alternative which he had hoped would alleviate the problem.
Suggesting that companies need to deal with the problem leads to an attempt at a technical solution.
Please describe how using an alternative name - that's the technical solution you propose - would sufficiently obscure his identity that he could continue to make posts in the style that he wishes. Posts which, among other things, refer to his acting experience.
Another "practical solution that has been known for centuries" is to describe the problem, as a way to push for a cultural change.
I disagree with your statement that the current result is simply that Wheaton has chosen to abstain from two social networks. Wheaton writes that he is "done with social media" and that "What we used to call microblogging isn’t worth the headache for me. I’m gonna focus my time and my energy on the things that I love, that make me happy, that support my family."
Nor do I see where Wheaton suggests that companies need to deal with the problem. I see "[Twitter's] never going to change, by the way." and "I respect and support [the Mastadon admin's] decision".
I wish him good luck.
One day that cool sewer--the one I used to hang out at--had too many turds floating in it. So I tried out another one... Even worse! That's it. No more sewers for me. Nosiree Bob!
Getting that kind of payload from pt A to pt B sure sounds like a sewer to me.
Twitter after the 2007 SXSWi was not considered a sewer, even with 140 characters. The River Fleet, in Roman times, was not a sewer. Most assuredly Twitter did not build their system as a sewer.
Twitter doubled its limit, so by your definition is no longer 'ideal'. The shitposting doesn't seem to be affected. Even if 140 is ideal, why should I think that unlimited length would somehow prevent problems?
I prefer to think you didn't think through the metaphor of your 'Executive Summary' well enough.
Whether it's social media, online games, or something entirely new, when there is a) real-time feedback, b) a profit motive, and c) a large enough user base to conduct experiments on, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the bright idea of hiring a few data scientists to optimize the rube-fleecing. Then it becomes Pavlov's human.
The whole awful business is the crack-pipe of our upper-middle class, and the guys who made those crack pipes knew exactly what they were doing. If a bunch of alt-right shitposters shoved Wil Wheaton off of the pipe, they unintentionally did him a favor.
And as far as original analogy went, sewers were designed for sewage. Rivers weren't. It is not that complicated.
How are those two things different?