Europe needs its own social media platforms to safeguard sovereignty
mediascope.group
mediascope.group
The sad thing is, we had social networks in Europe, things like Nasza Klasa and Hyves. But Facebook is ate them all, I'm not sure why. I'm also not sure why VKontakte survived, possibly because they became a blatant copy of Facebook as fast as they could.
Meta's networks mostly inaccessible to the public. Only registered users - who IIANM are people who establish their identity vis-a-vis meta, with a phone number, or what-not - can access them.
All the link I receive hosted by them will only show door kind of NDA or whatever you call a "click here to mindlessly accept all our ridiculous terms".
It's really a shame, I think it could thrive regionally until today . Big tech doesn't always win - for example also in Poland AWS tried and failed to win the market several times, because there's an existing platform that everyone uses already.
I'm talking about the 90+% of people, not the people we all probably know. It's not about elitism either, it's just human nature. People care about the ends, not the means.
Even with all things being equal, if you offer X covered in shinies, you will win over someone just offering X. Companies like Meta are very good at covering their products with shinies, and governments are not.
You might think smart people will better well balance than not the poison in their drug to keep their junky customer base just afloat so business have a perennial flow of serfs. But even smart people are humans and make errors. And even if they plan with error rate in mind, they can be overthrown by one of their many far more stupid rivals. The number of mindless wannabe will always largely exceeds the anticipation power of the sharpest minds.
... but you're not wrong, I'm afraid.
Its not really about FOSS vs proprietary. FOSS is better because it can be verified, but, for example, Whatsapp is better than a FOSS platform that is not E2EE and not decentralised.
Ideally we would use decentralised, E2EE encrypted FOSS.
Governments also like centralised platforms because they enable surveillance.
Clearly most people just don't care about freedom at all in general. They claim they do, but then will argue against anything and everything that provides even the tiniest measure of it.
What doesn’t work is trying to invent some open/stabdardized/distributed system. I’m happy to be proven wrong but we haven’t seen that work because they invariably have some drawback that the centralized systems don’t, while too few care about their benefits.
I don’t think anyone cares strongly about the origin if it’s American or European.
1) The EU would probably reject US-style moderation. They don't have the same level of tolerance for speech they disagree with. HN is up to what, its 3rd public moderator? The EU would probably have some sort of law that there must be some maximum number of mods per user if they had big social platforms. What if right-wingers say something without a mod looking over it? Europeans wouldn't stand for that sort of laxity or dang's obvious moderate bias.
2) The ad-supported aspect is likely to be problematic in the EU. The regulators seem pretty suspicious of that sort of thing.
3) A lot of the interesting people who were in Europe seem to get brain-drained to the US. Most of the interesting Europeans I know are US citizens because in the US they get paid well.
As for the "most interesting Europeans are Americans" thing, that's such a strange statement that I'm not sure how to respond, other than that has not been my experience.
You also hear a lot of Europeans cry out for censorship. They just think their kind of censorship will leave them alone. Until it doesn't. But they don't have to worry about it, since they're on American platforms anyway.
On the other hand, if doing this will let us avoid another genocide [1] maybe it's worth it.
2. We're concerned about privacy, but ad supported businesses are as popular as everywhere else (just regulated a bit more strictly). There's probably more fear of processing too much personal data and being sued, but it's good in my opinion as a customer.
3. Also true. But, assuming you're American, isn't the selection of Europeans your know biased? Anecdotally, most of the interesting Europeans I know are not American :).
[1] https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict....
It would take only one high-profile European institution to drop Twitter and set up their own server on the Fediverse - e.g, The Spanish "La Liga" running their own server for all the clubs and players eligible to play in UEFA - to get a good amount of people rushing to find out how to set up their own account.
Yeah our PR team would love this idea. What would actually happen is that nobody would read our updates, except that one or two journalists who repost it immediately on Twitter and X.
For them, I'd recommend to take a POSSE [0] approach: create their own instance and treat the other platforms as mere syndication channels. This would allow them to not lose any of their reach, but would also signal to everyone else that an exit path is available.
Every so often I get curious about something like Mastadon or Bluesky because it comes up here again. So I head over to see whatsup, and it's just post after post about how terrible Twitter is, and how badly it's doing now. Okay, I get it, you moved from Twitter because of blah, can you move on to all the things you _wanted_ to post on Twitter now?
If you only go check it after there is some major news that get people talking about it, then yes you'll probably end up seeing mostly this annoying meta-conversation around the Fediverse.
However, if you manage to stick around just a bit longer you will see that there is a tiny-but-growing number of people who are using Mastodon/Lemmy/Peertube "just" because they have found enough interesting people and conversation.
There is also nothing stopping you from taking initiative and starting the conversation around other, "better" topics. I made a habit of posting at least 3-5 links every day to Lemmy. You can always push out some introduction post on Mastodon with some relevant hashtags to see if you can help bootstrap a community, etc.
[0]: https://communick.news/u/rglullis?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
[^1] "Most" may be an overstatement these days.
1. Racist meme - probably because I am visible ethnic minority so they hope it is rage bait. I continue to see a lot of wolf whistle racism on FB although I ignore it. A lot of it reads like it is written by someone who is not a native English speaker.
2. Sponsored post advertising a course for kids who want to be lawyers. Probably because I have a teenage daughter and I am an admin of two home education related groups. Not relevant to anything my kids wants to do though.
3. A post from a group I am in.
4. A stupid anti-home ed post - one of these ones where they take an image of a post somehwere else and mock it. More rage bait. It also talks about American stuff (you have school taxes, apparent?) and I am in the UK.
5. A map from a group I am not in that is copied from Our World in Data.
6. A sponsored post for a luxury bed.
7. A meme from a group I think is stupid, suggesting you encourage your daughters to dress modestly.
8. Pictures posted by a friend.
9. A post from a group I am in..
10. A post from someone I have never heard of.
That makes three determined by who I follow, to seven algorithmically chosen.
I'm sure you had nothing like this in mind, but I found this humorous:
"There's a lot of racism on Facebook" "But I'm sure it's written by those illiterate foreigners"
Again, i'n certain you don't actually think like that, just letting you know how it can be misinterpreted because I'm above average sensitive about that (being ESL myself).
So a better platform is a must have if the EU wants the digital sovereign social media to have any traction. Most people just don't care enough about abstract concepts like digital sovereignty to move to a worse platform.
Companies care about it, which by extension should make some of their employees care as well.
(Saying this "out loud" made be realize one thing: maybe I should stop trying to make "get out of Twitter and come to Mastodon" happen, and get Communick to focus on companies and recruiters that want an alternative to LinkedIn?)
Privacy isn't the vector that is able to disrupt this (although it is a nice feature). This will get disrupted when some combination of the following tips the scales on a new platform enough to make the gulf in discovery small: - google screws with the search enough to make it hard to discover content users want (they are already 20% of the way to unusable at this point and getting worse every year),
- Someone makes an even worse for addiction platform that siphons the younger generation off who doesn't want to be on uncoool old guy's platform (i.e. what tiktok did to facebook/insta but also to some extent to youtube).
- Someone spends a crazy amount of money to pull creators off youtube onto their platform (nobody has spent enough money as diversely yet. spotify tried this half heartedly with rogan and twitch has tried it half heartedly with a few streamers but hasn't fixed their rev sharing so they are basically poison to everyone not big enough to get a sweetheart deal contract)
The anti-social networking anti-online people need to do a lot better than their useless squalid whining & saying we should turn it off & touch grass instead. Get a little more creative than that, find something less than the polemic version to advocate for.
Assume a group builds a social network just like Twitter, but with verified users, actually verified, possibly via personal ID / passport maybe at the town hall, no alias allowed, but the legal name, people will know who you are. All publicly readable without account.
This would give politicians, companies, journalists and citizens a way to have public "conversations", near real-time news updates just like on Twitter, but without the huge amount of garbage that comes from bots and people eagerly destroying the public discourse. Illegal comments (my mistake, criminal content) lead to direct consequences, maybe also with the one of setting the account to read-only mode.
British teen arrested for quoting rap lyrics.[0]
German man arrested for calling the vice chancellor an idiot ("dumkopf").[1]
French woman charged with insulting the president and faces a fine of $13,000.[2]
>In March 2018, Hasél was convicted by Spanish Special Court Audiencia Nacional in Madrid to a two-year prison sentence and a fine of €24,300 for insulting and slandering the Crown and using the King's image (for which he was ordered to pay a fine), for insulting and slandering State institutions (for which he was also ordered to pay a fine); /.../ The song was titled Juan Carlos el Bobón, which roughly translates as Juan Carlos the Clown, a wordplay on the former king's actual name, Juan Carlos de Borbón. In the song, Hasél recounts the former king's numerous scandals in a chronological order.[3]
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/03/30/woman-face...
Facebook tried this and as far as I can remember it was found illegal in Europe for a social network to require people to upload their ID, or use their real names.
I mean, this should not replace Twitter, but offer a less harassing environment.
Also, the UK/French and possibly other governments want to be able to read private messages and have law-enforcement tools made for free for them.
Public Opinion is free to issue in the EU, but doesn't go unpunished. Here an example and long legal battle most of us can't afford this famous talk show moderator had to face due to "Insulting a Majesty", the turkish president.
Don't even think of encryption, governments will request you build in backdoors for them. Social Networking is strictly controlled and locked down in the EU, hard to develop and maintain a product that you as a founder can goto jail for, if your users insult a majesty in some country.
A law had to be "cancelled" to repeal the extradition of Jan Böhmermann into prison in Turkey.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair
- https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2017/kw22-de-m...
If Böhmermann wants to publish attacking satire, I guess it would stay up until courts decide otherwise.
That's how you get mafias for free.
You're free to link to his posts (or copy them) from the new network on Twitter if that gives you the kind of discourse you prefer.
So, get these lobbies out there right now.
Twitter is a broken model you are trying to fix with draconian surveillance.
Politicians/Statesman/ Corporations should not be on my 'social network'. They make a press release with their PR or do an interview and journalists should report on it.
My 'social network' should be my family, friends, neighbours, maybe some local social groups in my city.
This idea of immediate, direct communication from companies and governments is not a workable model with our social fabric.
• Toxic assholes are not deterred by their name being attached to what they're saying, because they think they're saying righteous things and/or fighting bad people who don't deserve any respect.
• People self-censor, because they don't want to risk upsetting some random violent stranger on the internet who can track them down.
• People who don't use their legal name publicly have trouble participating. This impacts transgender people, but also people using stage names/pen names, and stalking victims.
I kind of like the idea of "one person one voice", but I have two problems with it, which I think will block me from accepting it.
One is that the cost of it seems much too high, even if you can change it to allow the use of chosen aliases (I don't think it matters what a "one person one voice" system calls an authenticated member). I don't really trust everyone who I have to give my ID details too, and this is just one more bit of stress for so little gain.
The second is that the benefits will never be realised. In an election, one person one vote doesn't work when half the population doesn't vote; you need almost everyone to come, otherwise it's the strongest opinions not the mainstream opinions that dominate. And I'm quite sure we'll see the exact same thing here, but in spades, and faster. If you don't like the opinion, you just don't show up. Once the centre of the social media is sufficiently different from the centre of the community, there will be the sort of bullying and self censorship you foresee and it will spiral out of control.
This kind of sounds like what you propose. Except maybe even more locked down
I gave up Meta and X. But didn’t replace them because there aren’t enough people on alternatives. I just surf less. Probably better for my mental health that way.
Most cloud systems that make scaling of platforms easier are American too. We (Europeans) aren't behind just in social media, but in most of the IT industry, and way too many critical elements of the total stack don't have reliable European counterparts.
So there are no guarantees even if it works without censorship currently.
In the other hand, the US manages to control it's completely privatized media, so maybe being publically funded is not the issue.
Tax founded/public != real/useful.
Also: I am NOT a "customer": since it's tax founded I am EXTORTED to pay for it.
A customer is someone who has the option to CEASE buying it. I do not have that option.
When we speak of dominant social networks today however they are runaway adtech cesspools, outright owned by malicious actors, or a combination thereof. That recurring "good stuff becomes shit stuff when getting popular" effect that people lament so much is in no small part caused by adverse profit seeking incentives. There is no dopamine, addiction and hence money in keeping your timeline chill, unpolarized, attached to median human reality rather than freak circus and not riling you up with ragebait.
And naturally anything created by man can be undone and subverted and it can be done to public media as well. This risk however does not outweigh a demonstrably pathetic status quo of the fiery pits of existing social media platforms.
Has someone done work on finding viable alternatives to the attention-based business models? As long as it's free, users will switch, but costs need to be managed somehow.
The anti-globalists by their actions seem to be creating a reaction which is leading to less global collaborations. Note the title uses the word "Sovereignty". Sovereignty is becoming more important as a reaction against the anti-globalism movement by those who want to support everyone anywhere working together over thin borders between peoples. In other words, isolationism breeds an isolationist reaction. We might see a stronger European identity versus others as a reaction against America's declaration of their identity over others.
Secondly, on an environmental front, we are seeing a move towards the reduction in global trade and travel between nations, and a reduction in developing world pollution as developed nations manufacture more things closer to home. So there's an irony in that the anti-environmentalists are causing a reaction that will help the global environment!
Compared to what? Europe isn't as fragmented as it used to be, and that it isn't possible to create big tech companies actually sound like a benefit to me, I don't want that. I personally prefer smaller companies, even if they don't take over the world, and it's a fairly popular sentiment at least around me in south-west Europe.
Me too, but Europe should be able to compete and provide alternatives to Big Tech which requires bigger scale companies to also exist. I think it's in Europe's best interest to be able to compete in this global market and become a technological leader. It's about relevancy but also potentially about European security.
This means that only really large countries can compete here since they start out with a big userbase and its much more likely for a smaller countries population to migrate to a large app than vice versa.
Where I live it took to after 2010 until American social media was more popular than local ones.
So Nestle can only succeed because it comes from Switzland? A non-european country within the EU. ARM succeeds because it is British and outside the EU.
Lets face it, the EU cannot create a) global cloud services (aka AWS), b) global search engine (aka google), c) global social media and d) global tech infrastructure (i.e. GPU chips). Only everyone else can do those things because .... well because the EU has so many separate cultures and languages. So cooperation is impossible.
EU can build giant particle accelerators, a space agency and a bureaucracy to stifle any innovation that isn't lead by some large established european consultancy company. EU can organise a huge increase in military spending. The EU can build fences around europe to ensure refugees don't get in.
But the EU cannot build a single search engine of global note. Yeck Google is simply too good. Even DuckDuckGo has managed to become a competitor but the EU? Too hard. Too fucking hard for the EU.
Fuck I'm sick and tired of hearing the poor EU complain about technology. It's been long enough and yet the EU cannot seem to compete. Remember when it came clear that the NSA was spying on European leaders? Well what has happened since? Nothing. Nichts. Rien. Niente. Nada. Nic.
The EU is rapidly becoming a giant open-air mueseum for tourists coming from countries that can do tech.
And USA is going to buy TikTok, just like they did almost every European tech company. You don't see what is happening here, do you? Bigger tech companies eat smaller ones because software is much more prone to networking effects than other industries.
> Fuck I'm sick and tired of hearing the poor EU complain about technology
You are the one complaining, I just explained why it happened like it happened.
> Lets face it, the EU cannot create d) global tech infrastructure (i.e. GPU chips).
AMSL is European, you are just wrong here, the whole worlds tech industry depends on AMSL. Europe is very strong in many industries, just not software. It is USA that can't do tech hardware, its all made in Europe and Asia now.
At least we Europeans have the tools to build chips ... unfortunately we don't use those tools.
Why is that? Because no EU country has a large enough userbase? Or is because regulation to protect our "environment"? Or did someone forget to click "yes accept all cookies" GDPR banner?
> Europe is very strong in many industries,
Regulations being an up & coming one.
When a loaded guy in the US dies sooner than the low class in Spain, something it's really wrong with your nutrition, healthcare and tons of troubles to be able to walk to a nearby store.
And to achieve that they need to realize that all the regulation they aimed at facebook can only be satisfied by entities that have facebook's money.
And thus, they're adding barriers to entry that ensure they won't have multiple competing social media platforms.
I disagree with your claim. Can you tell me why you think that is?
You can still sell advertisement without collecting and processing large amounts of personal data. I would claim that it's even better if your ads are based on the in-page content, than users' personal information.
At the same time, legislation such as Digital Markets Act applies to large entities (currently singled out), and further compliance is going to apply to new platforms when they become "large enough".
Or strict time limits on removing content that put a lower limit on staff.
If the 27 EU members than backdoor actors like Hungary are a bigger problem.
I want the EU to recognize the Microsoft/Intel/Amazon cluster as an even bigger national security risk, get some vision, and set up a competitor. It isn't even that hard, choose some OSS tools, give a core cluster to different countries and pour money into upgrading the quality enough and deploy some hardware. Then require EU governements to use them.
People didn't care.
However, the current poop-storm the U.S. has caused is making a lot of people wake up care about precisely this sort of thing. e.g. Canadians have finally realized that being more economically engaged North-South with the U.S. than East-West with other Canadian provinces is a very dumb thing that makes Canada extremely vulnerable to a foreign power that can no longer be relied upon. Measures that have been long viewed as "good ideas" are finally being enacted.
Don't say, "Nobody cares about FOSS alternatives to American social media." They haven't, until now. Now is a unique moment in history and the perfect time to switch.
Social media platforms are online communities. Their biggest asset is not algorithms or servers, but the people using them. What is Facebook or Twitter or Reddit without the users? Nothing. Invest your time and effort in the alternatives now. This is a rare opportunity.
[1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Also I think the push for AI alignment is American. At least three AI alignment people somehow always think that forcing I to adopt American values of the only correct and moral thing to do. Isn't that similar?
There's a reason why there are like 5 social networks while thousands of people want to "make the next Facebook."
If Meta is a threat, then ban it. People will cry and maybe then new alternatives may emerge. But you still need skilled people who'd rather work for you than accept Facebook's $400k offers. Good luck with EU funding.
So we need a way to censor things we disagree with.
Of course every platform censors things, it just varies about what is acceptable and what isn't.
Yes, this is sarcasm...
Trump has really encouraged Europe to spread their wings.
Chat Control vs the US surveillance state would be a more appropriate comparison and the US surveillance state only wants access to unencrypted data, but leaves you free to encrypt.
> Economic extraction
Trumpian logic.
> Erasing Europe’s diversity
The opposite is true. I can watch shows from all over Europe in the original language on Netflix, follow journalists from all over europe on Twitter, subscribe to r/europe on reddit.
I am getting tired of the the tropes such as this one: Europe is pro-privacy and the US is anti-privacy. This is simply not true.
It may have been true a while ago but this time has come and gone.
> While the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enshrines privacy as a fundamental right, US platforms remain bound by laws like the CLOUD Act, which grants American authorities access to data stored anywhere in the world. In 2022, the European Data Protection Board fined Meta for transferring EU user data to US servers, citing risks of NSA surveillance. Despite the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, experts warn that European data remains vulnerable to US intelligence overreach.
The EU is currently looking at breaking EtoE so that it can unleash an AI system to detect suspicious messages and images in your chat message, emails, private conversations with loved ones and so on. That's for our own good of course. Nothing nefarious here.
> US platforms siphon billions from Europe’s digital economy. In 2022, Meta reported €4.3 billion in EU revenue but paid an effective tax rate of 8.5% through Irish loopholes—€2.5 billion less than standard EU corporate rates. Google and Apple similarly route profits through tax havens, depriving European governments of funds needed for tech innovation.
I won't deny that Meta at al are using loopholes to reduce their tax bills but saying that this money would be used to fuel tech innovation is just not credible. Most likely, this cash would be used to plug the government's deficits and build weapons.
Also whoever wrote this probably forgets that there are costs associated with that revenue. If there was such a social media platform in Europe with the same scale at Facebook, it would required 10s of thousand of people to maintain and develop.
Considering the overall cost of an employee in Europe, I am not certain that there would be much left to tax after all these costs had been paid.
> US platforms homogenize culture by privileging English-language content aligning with the worldview of the current US presidential administration and US billionaires.
That is also false, if you are on Facebook for example you can join local groups that are in your own language. Same for your News feed. On X (although I go there rarely), my feed is composed of posts in 3 different languages.
If people see mostly content in English ,it is probably because those things are more interesting than other pieces of content in their own language.
As for the worldview, would this person have a problem with the worldview that people support if this worldview was the official worldview of the EU? I think not!
> Moreover, the EU is a regulatory superpower which can use legislation to support homegrown social media platforms. For example, the EU can mandate US “gatekeeper” platforms (per the Digital Markets Act) to interconnect with European alternatives, allowing cross-platform interactions.
And here we are back to the same old thing once again. More regulations and more coercion. If the EU can't compete, no problem, we will just force every foreign company to do our bidding because we can't win without forcing them to give us a leg up. Is that the European destiny that this person is talking about?
And here is another thing that reeks of self-contraction: we should not use the US platforms but we should force the US platforms so that they may help jump-start our own platforms despite the fact that the US platforms are bad except when we need them.
This is a really disjointed post that makes very little sense in my opinion.
What these people want is censorship that only allows progressive arguments to flourish. They already have all the laws that make non-progressive speech forbidden, but they are struggling to apply them to companies that are the other side of the pond. Having social networks here would allow them do to so easily. To that I have to say no thanks.
Saying that the manipulation was done by the UK because Cambridge Analytica happens to be Brittish completely misconstrues what happened.
> Cambridge Analytica was working for United States Senator Ted Cruz using data harvested from millions of people's Facebook accounts without their consent
> Facebook later confirmed that it actually had data on potentially over 87 million users, with 70.6 million of those people from the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
It was very much a story of manipulation in the US being done by Americans, even if there were Brittish people involved too.
Bluesky model is working better.
I have accounts on both and BlueSky is more active and widely adopted while Mastodon has only geeks/nerds on it.
You can disagree with this assessment but it is what I see.
However, the original commenter is right by saying that social media is far from being a necessity.
Generally I also understand the increasingly negative sentiment towards social media and the assumption that it does far more harm than it does good doesn’t seem far fetched anymore
We need something to allow people to organize around friends/topics/places and discover ideas, share, make sense of the world, act, etc. Reddit, Facebook, and twitter served those needs. I prefer social media over traditional newspapers that are very top down.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Xxi0b9trY [video][documentary][44 mins]
That said, I deleted my FB and TW/X account and while I don't miss their toxicity, I am more isolated than ever. I noticed that even for older people, their willingness to meet in person has gone down and their ability to reply to e-mails, including purely coordinational ones, is seriously shot.
I mean, honestly, if we're ever going to figure out what parts of these platforms are beneficial and which are harmful, we really need to start being more specific about what we're talking about.
And I hardly think you can call something as long-lived as social media of any form a 'fad'
0 - Yes, some people do, but I think we can agree it's not nearly as popular a view as those pushing against 'social media'
HN is more link aggregator / web forum than what the term social media has come to represent. I will grant you that the term 'social media' literally could cover any media that is social, but that's not historically how it has been applied.
Here there is no algorithmic bubble curated by engagement algorithm. Any attention is managed by the human brain, which is way healthier for the individual as they aren't being manuipulated into addictive engagement and groups as it tends less to form highly refined group think bubbles.
He's right, social media is the a big cause of the current unrest, not something that must be saved.
I would agree that communication platforms should probably not be open to spying or manipulation, but end-to-end encryption goes a long way there. The remaining problem is access being turned off, which can be solved by not relying on government controlled infrastructure (like electricity grid, networks, etc.).
So the person is right. The answer isn't a new site, it is more in person comms as redundancy.
That said, my definition of social media is based on what is has become in recent history: 'internet-based surveillance-driven attention market'. It is a platform that divvies up users by demographics (determined by multiple forms of surveillance) and sells access to their eyes/brains. Because payment is tied to those eyes, there is an implied incentive to maximize 'engagement' (the number of times those eyes look at something).
That is not at all how I'd describe Hackernews, a link aggregation site (like Reddit), or a web forum (where people can talk to each other), despite social media platforms having all of those sort of abilities.
Slow paced, much less drama, intelligent discussions. And you can get all your threaded chats offline.
Great for nerds but not going to solve society’s larger scale needs.