What would it take to replace Twitter and Facebook?
In 2016, you had a guy jokingly claim that he was ripping republican ballots in Ohio. This tweet spread like wildfire, and caused an unimaginable headache for the secretary of state as the right-wing media went wild on the story. I'm not surprised Twitter is taking such heavy handed action given that they will be directly in the cross hairs if a story like that ever happens again. No "replacement" would be immune from this issue.
I also don't think anybody would choose to be censored, that doesn't make sense. Maybe you could offer optional spam or misinformation filters, but why would anybody force them one themselves? Twitter and Facebook also employ "fact checking services", which would simply be applied voluntarily to other networks.
I also think the problem is way overblown. On Twitter you can choose who to follow. If select the right people, you won't get the misinformation spam.
I never claimed a replacement could be built in a weekend, and the incentives are exactly part of the problem and part of my question. It seems technically possible to built something like Twitter on a distributed basis with nobody having centralized control, but it probably wouldn't be as snappy as Twitter. People stay on Twitter out of convenience, and also because of the network effect. You would have to make lots of people switch at the same time. That is the challenge.
My previous example about the republican ballot shredding was one where a kid thought we would post a tweet that he was shredding ballots because he thought it would be funny. This not only caused an entire news cycle about how republicans that the entire process was unfair, but seriously called into the question the staff and security of those working on the elections. Many of them faced threats for an issue they didn’t know existed because of this tweet. Similarly if you have people showing up to pizza shops inciting violence because they believed Hillary Clinton was hiding children in the basement your platform will ultimately be seen as a conduit for this type behavior. It’s no different from yelling fire in a movie theater.
It doesn’t matter if you individually carefully select and get who you follow, you have to ensure everyone else acts accordingly - and as we can see they won’t.
You have to ask yourself if your platform was large enough to have these issues in the real world what would you do to minimize it - because if you don’t Congress will and the hammer of the state is very blunt.
Just saying "I wouldn't solve that problem" doesn't contribute in understanding how one can build more open platforms in the future.
Also there would be no reason to switch away from Twitter if you want to censor users anyway.
And I disagree that the spread of misinformation is such a huge issue as you make it out to be. Misinformation existed before the internet, it isn't caused by it. The internet makes it easier to double check information.
If watching a boy burn ballots makes people burn ballots, I don't think Twitter is the problem here. I think those people have some other deep seated problems. I'm sure I wouldn't burn ballots if I saw that video (I haven't).
It was trending on product hunt yesterday and many alternatives are created every week.
I don't understand people on HN. They don't want mainstream social media but won't try these smaller alternatives because they are not mainstream. Seems pretty contradictory, no?
This isn't a real alternative because it doesn't have [insert the reason why people here hate twitter or Facebook]
It's a refuge for the people too deplorable to survive on an actual reputable site.
> Gab is an English-language alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[7] The site has been widely described as a safe haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, and has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[8][9][19] Gab states that it promotes free speech and individual liberty, although these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right ecosystem.[20][17][21] Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[23][24][25] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[26]
It's almost like there's a pattern of "free speech" alternatives turning into a cesspool.
For a thing to be a better alternative it would need to have structural differences that ensure it will not devolve as Twitter has. Gab is essentially a carbon copy of Twitter, but for a different set of ideas.
Pleroma and Mastodon (as well as other ActivityPub enabled microblogging software) are the only real, better alternatives that exist right now.
Another way it does this is that there's no financial incentive to share "engaging" content and there's no algorithm to rank content. So it is not conducive to the viral spread of inflammatory content.
Keep in mind, most things we call "networks" are just single web sites. Most of the problem I believe stems from this confusion. AP is an actual network. It is what we have wanted to have on the internet for a very long time.