Honestly, as much as this argument has been beaten to death, they just need to allow explicit NSFW content. This is Twitter's edge right now, and Reddit maybe. Let people post freely, and they'll return.
They could capitalize on all the weirdness and discontent from twitter and reddit like zuckerberg is doing.
Even if a waiver is signed, there's significant duress in many cases. There's a lot of pain and evil enabled by allowing porn to spread on an algorithmic newsfeed.
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/CCHT%20Annua...
How confident do you feel that your religion, or people acting on behalf of it, have not engaged in violent acts of revenge, torture, child abuse, or human trafficking? Does it not cause significant duress in many cases to teach people to feel shame, to tell them normal feelings are sinful, that they will suffer for eternity if they break the rules? No one needs to worship any particular religion—there are plenty of other ones, after all—so perhaps yours should not be allowed because it’s associated with bad things?
Do you eat meat from industrial farms? Use electronics containing conflict minerals? Wear clothes made overseas? Play video games from studios notorious for crunch? All these industries cause significant amounts of suffering and many are exploitative. They fund wars, genocides, slave labour, child labour[0][1], human trafficking, and animal abuse. They cause duress, evil, and pain. Shall we disallow them? We don’t need to eat meat and it would be healthier for most people and the planet if they didn’t. We can go back to buying only domestic clothing, or just make our own. We all lived without smartphones until 15 years ago, so those can go. Games are just like porn—merely diversions—so if we discount all the joy they bring to people, they really have no value to society at all. Should we get rid of these things, too, because they are associated with bad things?
Allowing books aids a probabilistic percentage of people who want to promote violence and hatred toward others, deliberately spread falsehoods, advocate for and explicitly describe abuse, and give instruction on how to cause harm. Even when there are disclaimers, sometimes they cause significant duress to readers. There’s a lot of pain and evil enabled by allowing books to spread… do you get the picture?
All human enterprise has problems, and inductive fallacies like these are no way to judge what should or should not be allowed.
https://www.tumblr.com/staff/699744158019190784/this-is-not-...
For a little while, Tumblr was a mainstream social network. This was at a time when Twitter didn't even have built-in photo functionality yet, and both Instagram and Pinterest were still tiny / widely unknown.
Those mainstream users probably aren't coming back. Say what you will about having a ton of "normies" and brands on your platform, but it's not clear if a social network can be profitable (and therefore sustainable) these days without them.
Not in the current market environment, no. But it's not "normies" that are the problem - it's the "free service, make money on ads" business model that's the root of the issue. It will, by its very nature, always lead to the so-called "enshittification". And, it's also near-impossible to compete with at scale. So paid social networks just can't work, because a "free with ads" service will trivially outcompete it before it starts to visibly rot.
I say current market environment, because there's always that slight hope that some sort of regulatory intervention will kill the "free with ads" model, or at least severely restrict it to level the playing field.
The "free with ads" service will "outcompete" by immediately being in basically-infinite debt, right? Is that really still "competing"?