Hacker News Reader

"Better" is a multi-dimensional measure and people have very different preferences for what constitutes "better". The source of the winner take all dynamic is network effects. Because of those, everyone agrees that the "better" platform is the one that everyone is on, which inevitably causes everyone to use that same platform, even if they would have different preferences but for the number of people on it.

View on HN

Not quite. Yes, network effects are important, but if that were the only important thing, then Facebook would be the only social media site. The opposing dynamic is that it's not hard to be on multiple sites at the same time. So if there's a site that meets my definition of "better" and has critical mass among the people I'd like to connect with it, it can compete. Each new generation gets its own social network because it has no interest in connecting with the squares on Facebook.

> Each new generation gets its own social network

So instead of accelerating progress we get one monopoly every 20 years (and some people splitting their attention, and friendship groups, and exposure to surveillance, between multiple incompatible sites).

That's not as reassuring as you might think it is.

I wouldn't call it reassuring, but it is the pattern so far. What gives me hope is that we don't have a single unassailable monopoly. Instead, we get a chance, every five years or so, to choose something better. We just might figure out how to deal with this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com