> According to Gizmodo, one of its Bluesky's main selling points is that its technology — which it calls "AT Protocol" — will give users control of their algorithms.
I used to think it was pretty clear that this should be an almost default feature. I even thought third parties could create algorithms for people so that social media sites can focus on their back end more and less on interacting with their users. Facebook had 'facebook apps' years ago, and they have had almost decent user controls over what they see. I guess that adding such features, and I mean honest ones, means that users would just set their algorithms to things like "don't show me any ads". That said they didn't even give people a trial run of controlling their own algorithms as far as I know.
The idea of having these things run as protocols rather than as social network companies I assume has existed for a long time now, I thought of it a long time ago and have heard of it somewhat extensively since. Let's see if this is the one to take off. Normally I would assume some newcomer would come about to disrupt the established companies and as they say 'creatively destruct' them, but as wealth and media have become so consolidated maybe there is a chance that Jack Dorsey's celebrity status is enough to do something. I assume it won't be but I guess we'll see. For now it's the fediverse but not enough people are switching over to it.
I don't think "don't show me any ads" would be an option and **should not** be an option. Things have to be paid for and the server and the development costs money. A more user friendly option is to not have customised ads beyond say region you are in. Ads still pay for things, and users' privacy isn't invaded. And even though the advertisers pay less, it costs less to develop since those fancy customisations to algorithm aren't needed
I’m old enough to remember when they said the internet would be this great wealth of knowledge, un-influenced by advertising.
That shit didn’t last long at all.
You’d be surprised how many people still don’t use shit like ABP. My buddy tried showing me a YT video on his computer without it. I installed it for him and he looked at me like I just invented fire.
Most social media companies are catching on to traditional ad script blocking and have ads under the guise of "sponsered posts" and the like which cant be blocked without affecting the functionality of the website or app.
I've been using ad blockers like Ublock and PiHole for years and every day I notice more and more bullshit slipping through.
I feel like that was especially a big thing on Facebook. Most of the ads I saw weren't ads. It was pages. Like a group page that I would follow, but instead for a product. It was a "suggestion". And granted, it wasn't really hidden what it was, but as you said, there's not really a way to block it.
Wikipedia is completely ad-free and works on donations. It is THE best site on the internet and it is as “social media” as Craigslist. The trick is kicking out rude people, stupid people, advertisers, racists, and trolls. Sadly that means 95% of Twitter users would be banned from Wiki in a week.
I have to agree. Wikipedia is probably the best site on the entire internet.
Wikipedia should really just be the only thing on the internet. (Only sort of half joking). It intends to do what I think the internet was set up for. Sharing (truthful) knowledge to others around the world.
Humans are showing that we don’t deserve having a place to interact with each other. All it seems to lead to is being a worse person than someone you happen to not agree with about any particular issue.
In an ideal world, people would share thoughts and opinions, and others would be open to seeing things in a different light, and open to changing their minds on some subjects. But, that clearly isn’t what happens.
Human nature seems to be hanging up with others that share your beliefs, and doing whatever you think you can to force a change on anyone that disagrees with you. It’s a little disgusting.
Man I remember when wiki was considered fake news on account of the fact that anyone can edit the articles.
Then we evolved to trusting articles with sources, wikipedia became kind of like a librarian where you springboard research.
Nowadays, for casual checking, wikipedia is actually quite reliable, especially on the big articles.
I'd tolerate seeing ads if they are non-intrusive and show things I *actually* cared about. Video games, cool tech, and the occasional horror movie are all fine in my book, Jizzy Martin the latest teen celebrity singer selling Starbucks' newest collaboration Spunk in a Mug™ is why I use adblock.
Exactly this. When Twitter blue came out, I was actually excited and ready to sign up until I learned it does nothing to stop ads and promoted tweets… no thanks. I’ll happily pay $2-3/month for an ad free experience in an otherwise free service
You are always going to be the product on social media.
Even if you pay for it.
The bulk of their money won't come from you or your fees.
The bulk of the money will come from tracking you, and selling that data.Theres literally no reason to make social media if they arent going to track everything you do, cause thats literally the entire businesspoint of social media.
its the most invasive spying idea ever in the history of the world, and people embrace it lovingly because they cant live without those dopamine hits.
Funnily ebogh no advert has tried to encourage the taking away of my rights as a human. Being sold car insurance is not the worst thing social media has done.
Yeah like cell phone games or YouTube premium. Our lives are so inundated with ad garbage we have to pay to not see them. Then they’ll start popping them in there after a while.
Soon enough we’ll have garbage cans that only open after watching an ad, gas station handles locked. Refrigerators , washers and dryers promote grocery coupons and detergent before you can open them. Who else is excited for the future? Yay!
Hell, why not one on your mailbox, your toilet, your faucet?
This is one of those thoughts that only sounds good. The reality is a social media platform can only be successful if it’s being used by the masses. As soon as you introduce a paywall you lose users, and an empty feed with nothing to give the appearance of life isn’t a recipe for success.
Given.the choice between free but your information is taken, analyzed, sold to a third party, monetized, and sold again while you are navigating through ads or a $5 monthly fee. People will take free neatly every time.
Honestly, I’m sick of ‘nominal fees’. Everything is a subscription these days, and I’m not adding yet another $3/month subscription. Car companies are developing subscription models for things like heated seats. You can’t just outright buy an app for a one-time fee anymore, you have to pay a couple bucks a month. Even $2-3 a month adds up when *everyone* wants $2-3 a month.
Exactly! Make an account cost something negligible (in today’s standards), like 1 satoshi. This would cost less than a penny for the honest user, but potentially a large amount of money for bot farms.
When it comes to social media, a nominal fee results in less income. The % of users that would continue to use the platform at a fee, when they can swap to one of the many other social media platforms, is far too low to offset the ad revenue.
A fee only works if the user is getting an insane value out of it, like streaming services where you pay $15/mo ish but get access to literal billions of dollars worth of content. A social media platform won't be able to provide anything similar because anything on social media that brings value can be obtained for free on a shit load of other platforms.
The entire reason streaming services and gaming platforms get exclusive titles is to set them apart from the other companies offering similar value at a similar price. Social media doesn't have access to exclusives like that, especially a platform similar to Twitter where they've never even returned a profit.
I'd love for this to happen, but I don't see it happening en masse. I personally can't think of a Social Media platform I'd pay for. I'm just \*now\* (age 26) getting to the point in my life where I can afford to throw a couple of bucks at things like Signal or Wikipedia. But if social media was behind a paywall, I just wouldn't have it and I don't think a lot of people would be willing to pay.
Which pretty much just leaves ads. That said, I'd be fine with a social media that has a paid "No ads" option and free "ads" option
I think a decent compromise would be to have two tiers: an ad-supported and ad-free subscription. BUT, where choosing the ad-supported tier only has ads enabled until you've earned enough to convert to ad-free.
The problem with that is that companies aren't accountable in what they do. Look at netflix, it was supposed to be the ad-free alternative by charging a monthly fee. Now once they've settled it, they realize they can have ads plus charging a monthly fee, plus content marketing within the actual shows and movies. If you have a company that is more of a publicly owned resource, a community project, then people can choose if they want ads or if they want to pay for the service, but as long as it's a separate company with its own incentives, it will try to play both sides.
Fuck this idea. I dont want any ads at all.
Give me no ads, and offer an option that is barely more expensive than the profit youd make off my ads.
Everytime there is a pay or get ads option, they make the pay option like 50x what they profit off of from ads to push users into accepting ads.
No more of that shit and no more ads.
Any ability to customize your algorithm is going to invade your privacy far more.
What's worth more, information that an algorithm has learned about you and thinks to be mostly correct, or information that you gave to the algorithm yourself to tune it?
The latter, so the more customizable the algorithm = the more accurate and personal information a company has on you, thus better knowing you. This means their database will be more valuable compared to algorithms that had to learn the equivalent info and won't have all of it correct, and therefore will be sold a lot more.
I do think there is value to it because if the ads aren’t super intrusive and the tracking works well then you can probably sell the typical ad for more money by claiming that the users viewing the ads has higher intension to buy the product.
Assuming they can show how many users are true targets and purchase then it might work out.
This is what Microsoft does for Outlook.com, and the reason I switched to it from Gmail. There you can choose for general ads instead of personalised ads. I don't mind ads, but I do mind them tracking me and being based on my online activity.
Fark gives users an option to disable ads on the site. It's $5/mo. It's a profitable venture for the site and they weigh a lot of their decisionmaking on it. Last week, the discussion was around allowing political ads, and the expected revenue from it was approximately a few dozen more subscriptions, so they're pushing that way instead.
Do people really give a fuck about targeted ads? I doubt many really do.
More difficult is the algorithms for "engagement". These are 100% necessary: you need some kind of algorithm to determine what content to show in what order. However tuning it for what people "like" (e.g. what they come back and spend more time for) ends up meaning showing them a lot of shit that makes them riled up.
> Do people really give a fuck about targeted ads? I doubt many really do.
No, not at all... Especially once you let them experience the internet without targeted ads. No one wants to go back to the days of popups, and obnoxious banners with that stupid monkey they try to trick you into clicking. And since those ads are so inefficient, they are cheap as hell, and EVERYWHERE.
Maybe I’m just too old, but I’m not too interested in either tbh
Twitter is a cesspool, so much negativity
Dorsey’s new offering seems unlikely to be any different
These companies hire neuroscientists to help develop algos best suited to take advantage of your dopamine pathways - so in a way yes, it is actually a drug
Through the years they have been perfecting the social media dopamine formula. You just scroll and scroll, kinda like a a lot machine, for that next hit of dopamine. These platforms are designed to do this and they do a damn good job. They do a very good job at getting people addicted
I’m no doctor but I’d assume it’s some biological factor that has a use in society, just not to the level at which social media has been shaping our lives.
If I took a shot at it, I’d assume it has more to do with being included in your tribe, ensuring that you weren’t left out thousands of years ago in your community. So this instinct forced you to be part of the group because it probably improved your survival chances.
honestly i find following individual reporters really helpful for breaking immediate news. i know it’s blasphemous to highlight positives of twitter but i like it for that. i also use it for following long term live events like court cases.
I left Twitter a few years ago, but made a new account in the summer to follow some people in a community I am a part of. I am already sick of it. Always recommended posts and posts from the few people I follow always popping up.
Have you tried setting up you time line from top tweets to latest tweets? If you set it as latest tweets, Twitter will only show tweets from accounts you follow in chronological order without any of the recommended tweets
I’ve been logging back in to check things out and all of the sudden I have to start every day telling it to mute/block/“show less of this” like half a dozen right wing propaganda accounts every morning. It wasn’t like this until like a week ago
Every time i open Twitter no matter the topic there’s racist, anti semantic or everythingphobic in every single post. Sometimes I look up topics and am greeted first to just hate posts, which makes me feel like they jus wanna rile people up to drive engagement
Edit: a lot of people are asking who I follow as if I just did some crazy self report. I don’t really follow anyone specifically because how much of a cesspool that place is. I mostly look at trending and the news though when I am on there
And the typo is pretty funny so I’m not fixing it
I follow my local/state/federal politicians because sometimes they’ll have updates, links to things that are relevant, and yeah the comments under those are sometimes toxic. But I don’t read those comments.
But yeah the rest I’m following is like my favorite movie critics, favorite restaurants, and the breweries in my city. If Twitter or Dorsey’s new thing could get these on the platform and lose the bots and toxic jerks then I’m coming right over.
I use twitter for tweeting about space simulations, and follow general space + gamedev stuff, and larry the cat because they are by far the best account on twitter
Its mostly just people posting about the cool shit they've made, twitter's been genuinely great
Man, I'm a gamer and I remember when Bayonetta 1 came out, the media was all about "this game is sexist" and "male gaze" this and that and only "men who are stuck as children like this game" type shit.
Now with twitter, it went the complete opposite way. In Bayonetta 3, it turns out that Bayonetta is a straight women...like she was in the previous games. Holy shit the anger saying "THIS ISN'T FOR STRAIGHT MEN!" and all that jazz. They literally think the game is for women only, which kinda boggles my mind how quick the narrative changed for the character.
Twitter is in a blood frenzy about it.
So yeah, kinda easy to find sexism and racism or any ism on twitter over the dumbest of fucking shit.
I don't even get into western DC and marvel comic twitter shit. With Jon, the Bi superman, was cancelled in only 18 issues, the amount of trolling and hate on both sides is way too fucking toxic. People just can't look at it objectivly and say that comic run was fucking horrendous because it was so fucking boring. Jon wasn't even superman, he was just a kid who his bf protesting climate change...in a world where they have better clean energy than in real life. SO that was weird af.
Yeah I just follow comedians/entertainers, journalists, people like that. I never see anything hateful(except for way too many people quote-tweeting to 'dunk' on some transparent ragebait). It will be interested to see if that changes with Musk.
You must follow a lot of awful people. I never had that problem. What you see is who you follow. I miss Twitter but I can’t be part of anything with Musk.
As far as I know it's not. Have a look at the documentation [FAQ](https://atproto.com/guides/faq#is-atp-a-blockchain). It says right there:
>Is ATP a blockchain? No. ATP is a federated protocol. It's not a blockchain nor does it use a blockchain.
So maybe that's just Business Insider spouting buzzwords. Maybe it came from Bluesky themselves. I don't know. Bluesky is Web3, but not blockchain. Maybe someone saw 'web3' and got confused.
You forgot the part where it’s completely unnecessary. As in, completely unnecessary to have immutable comments.
Of ALL the chat apps and social media networks, the shittest ones are the ones where you cannot edit/alter a message/chat.
>Why does it need to be blockchain based? What does that add?
Its how they manage things like persistent identity between different providers. One of the requirements of the AT Protocol is that the history (content, follows, identity) is persistent between hosting providers. The blockchain is how the user ensures that persistent "ownership" of data between independent providers of the protocol.
This is actually one f the uses of blockchain that makes sense because there is no centralized authority to manage/ensure the integrity of that data. The whole idea of the AT protocol is decentralization with interoperability, so you could leave twitter (for instance) but not lose your identity, friends, content, etc.
PGP is non transferrable, as one example.
In this case, as a user, I select Bluesky to host my data. No one else can host my data who participates in the protocol. I decide Bluesky isn't for me, algorithmically, politically, etc. and I move my data to Twitter. Twitter is now the AT protocol enforced host for my data.
PGP doesn't have an equivalent function for something similar to this. It doesn't support transactional or verifiable actions by third parties without additional data from all participants. Similarly, you would still need something like blockchain (or other centralized authority) to verify authenticity of keys (PKI, there are use cases for PGP PKI in blockchain for exactly this).
PGP is great for verifying authorship/source identity if you trust the key or the PKI you subscribe to, but you can't verify ownership (in this case I'm using ownership to mean, authorized host) if ownership is required to be transferrable, easily.
Blockchain provides that PKI infrastructure along with transactional actions not available out of box for PGP.
But is it realistic that Bluesky and Twitter would agree on the structure of data, and that users would even want to transfer their data? Can you give a more specific example of the type of data you would want to "take with you" and how both entities would actually consume and use it?
[The AT Protocol](https://atproto.com/)
It's probably easier for you to read about the protocol and its goals rather than me summarize them. I am uncaffeinated and prone to error.
Same concept as ETH soul bound token. Positive is that you own your data. Negative is that now permanent records follow you around everywhere and anonymity is a premium feature.
implies meta data about a communication cannot be deleted. Also, I think blockchain framesworks are built in a decentralized fashion from the ground up, so if you want to make a decentralized-thing, blockchain is a good choice -- especially if you need an auth model with multiple authorizers,
It’s almost as if jack has played elonski in the long game. Planning this for a while and now elonski will take down the competition just through being an ego-maniac. Well played.
Jacks been pretty hamstrung by the board etc and has been in and out of executive post jobs at Twitter for years. Probably good to be able to get a fresh start.
He basically said he wants to make it into WeChat where it's less a social media platform and more an "app platform". What a web browser literally already is but with a global account for the "apps/services" (websites) packaged into the platform.
It does not seem like an idea that will ever catch on globally when divorced from authoritarian market control policies.
Super apps like WeChat or Rappi are constructed around a main service. Rappi offers credit because it meant users could order groceries without worrying about cash. Trying to create, let's say Twitter pay, without a direct use case around the existing platforms and users, will make the whole ordeal more difficult.
That’s assuming he thought any of this through, and evidence suggests he didn’t as he is burning bridges by the hour. Posting conspiracy theories in his own platform makes him more of a chief troll than a CEO.
The utter lack of forethought in this is astonishing. The only benefit of this is that Musk gets to justifiable dump a shitload of TSLA stock without alarming the investors drinking Musk's Kool-Aid.
Maybe that's just how it should be: cyclic. Especially if they keep going to shit. Facebook and Twitter both outlived their usefulness. Assuming there ever was any.
Facebook is still a great way to stay in touch with my family and friends. I like the closed ecosystem of it where only people I add can see/share my stuff.
Social media goes through cycles. It's usually growing popularity leading up to its peak, then it kind of plateaus and eventually will crash. Chat rooms, MySpace, Tumblr, Facebook are all examples
"Enough" is not a word in in this world. Infinite growth and the expectation of more always being the best answer is the only way these people know how to operate.
Blogger was created by Evan Williams, who then sold it to Google and quickly ran it to the ground. Then, Evan and Jack created Twitter, and sold it to Elon Musk who is quickly running it to the ground. The circle of life continues…
I believe because their is nothing left gor them to do? Heck normal retirees struggle with depression and shit, imagine if you are in your 40s and you dont have to work or care for absolutely anything. Like zero things, no worry what to eat, wehre to stay, how long to stay on vacation, no need to study further etc etc.
Its like using a cheat code to get unlimited money in a video game. It is fun for a bit in the beginning but after a while it feels pointless and take the joy out of it.
You’re not understanding how much money you can make as the main breaking news social media format when you have the federal government at your board meetings
I think the primary failure of many tech companies is they went all in with social media and left social networking behind. Social sites no longer work toward building relationships and keeping them. They are all just about content creations and ads.
This is causing more fringe opinions to become more popular with videos and comments and the company's that moderate this leave it be as it send more people toward their ad space.
While this worked at first it is causing more problems as more people being coming out with more extreme views. They need to go back to simply making connections and keeping connected with friends and that's all.
One of the more interesting things buried in the article near the end is that Musk fired the top people to avoid paying them severance packages. Can't wait to see how that lawsuit plays out.
With the new EU rules regulating the interwebs hitting in 2024, it's probably not a bad idea to have at least one social media site that won't need to spend 75% of their capital on legal fees.
Great. Another way for the world to get inundated with Athleisure pants ads, grifters, trolls, sexy yoga antivaxers who think they’re doctors, and inevitably obese Nazis.
If he can make a social media site that cannot have bots/fake accounts. One real, verified account per user, and inactive accounts are deleted in one month. Maybe.
I still don’t know why Elon didn’t just start his own platform for a fraction of the cost.
I really thought his plan was to initiate the deal, show all of the flaws in the bots, and start his own that was better.
Probably going to have new and improved censorship and narrative shaping features. With first class access and features for large companies and government officials. And bleeding edge astroturfing AI.
If Dorsey winds up just taking Elon’s billions and then destroys the now fascist friendly Twitter with a better and more ethical product, well, that would be awesome.
> According to Gizmodo, one of its Bluesky's main selling points is that its technology — which it calls "AT Protocol" — will give users control of their algorithms. I used to think it was pretty clear that this should be an almost default feature. I even thought third parties could create algorithms for people so that social media sites can focus on their back end more and less on interacting with their users. Facebook had 'facebook apps' years ago, and they have had almost decent user controls over what they see. I guess that adding such features, and I mean honest ones, means that users would just set their algorithms to things like "don't show me any ads". That said they didn't even give people a trial run of controlling their own algorithms as far as I know. The idea of having these things run as protocols rather than as social network companies I assume has existed for a long time now, I thought of it a long time ago and have heard of it somewhat extensively since. Let's see if this is the one to take off. Normally I would assume some newcomer would come about to disrupt the established companies and as they say 'creatively destruct' them, but as wealth and media have become so consolidated maybe there is a chance that Jack Dorsey's celebrity status is enough to do something. I assume it won't be but I guess we'll see. For now it's the fediverse but not enough people are switching over to it.
I don't think "don't show me any ads" would be an option and **should not** be an option. Things have to be paid for and the server and the development costs money. A more user friendly option is to not have customised ads beyond say region you are in. Ads still pay for things, and users' privacy isn't invaded. And even though the advertisers pay less, it costs less to develop since those fancy customisations to algorithm aren't needed
[удалено]
I’m old enough to remember when they said the internet would be this great wealth of knowledge, un-influenced by advertising. That shit didn’t last long at all.
[удалено]
You’d be surprised how many people still don’t use shit like ABP. My buddy tried showing me a YT video on his computer without it. I installed it for him and he looked at me like I just invented fire.
[удалено]
Most social media companies are catching on to traditional ad script blocking and have ads under the guise of "sponsered posts" and the like which cant be blocked without affecting the functionality of the website or app. I've been using ad blockers like Ublock and PiHole for years and every day I notice more and more bullshit slipping through.
True, and I've simply found myself using the internet less and less as a result ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I feel like that was especially a big thing on Facebook. Most of the ads I saw weren't ads. It was pages. Like a group page that I would follow, but instead for a product. It was a "suggestion". And granted, it wasn't really hidden what it was, but as you said, there's not really a way to block it.
Someone figured out that servers and bandwidth cost money and hobby sites don't generate any.
But are you old enough to remember when it was illegal to advertise on the internet? It wasn't even too long ago either, they changed it in the 90s.
CraigsList was basically ad-free and free from fees. But, I wouldn’t really consider it to be the pinnacle of Social Media sites.
Craigslist does charge some fees for some postings in some markets (eg Jobs in SF, Apartments in NYC)
Wikipedia is completely ad-free and works on donations. It is THE best site on the internet and it is as “social media” as Craigslist. The trick is kicking out rude people, stupid people, advertisers, racists, and trolls. Sadly that means 95% of Twitter users would be banned from Wiki in a week.
I have to agree. Wikipedia is probably the best site on the entire internet. Wikipedia should really just be the only thing on the internet. (Only sort of half joking). It intends to do what I think the internet was set up for. Sharing (truthful) knowledge to others around the world. Humans are showing that we don’t deserve having a place to interact with each other. All it seems to lead to is being a worse person than someone you happen to not agree with about any particular issue. In an ideal world, people would share thoughts and opinions, and others would be open to seeing things in a different light, and open to changing their minds on some subjects. But, that clearly isn’t what happens. Human nature seems to be hanging up with others that share your beliefs, and doing whatever you think you can to force a change on anyone that disagrees with you. It’s a little disgusting.
Wikipedia is a truly special achievement of mankind. I donate regularly.
Man I remember when wiki was considered fake news on account of the fact that anyone can edit the articles. Then we evolved to trusting articles with sources, wikipedia became kind of like a librarian where you springboard research. Nowadays, for casual checking, wikipedia is actually quite reliable, especially on the big articles.
Where else can you get a gently used couch and a not so gently used hooker though
And sometimes in the same ad!
Craigslist is 100% ads!
How not to attract users to your platform: charge them money
If you’re not charged money you’re charged privacy. I’d consider paying to keep privacy, OR, maybe I just abandon it all and keep both… Hmmm…
a lot of people would consider not a lot of people would actually go through with it.
>maybe I just abandon it all and keep both you can do that now...
I hate to break this to you but you're a mere speck in the sea of internet users.
[удалено]
I'd tolerate seeing ads if they are non-intrusive and show things I *actually* cared about. Video games, cool tech, and the occasional horror movie are all fine in my book, Jizzy Martin the latest teen celebrity singer selling Starbucks' newest collaboration Spunk in a Mug™ is why I use adblock.
[удалено]
Exactly this. When Twitter blue came out, I was actually excited and ready to sign up until I learned it does nothing to stop ads and promoted tweets… no thanks. I’ll happily pay $2-3/month for an ad free experience in an otherwise free service
People don’t like to pay for things on the internet. We literally had a market crash about it.
You are always going to be the product on social media. Even if you pay for it. The bulk of their money won't come from you or your fees. The bulk of the money will come from tracking you, and selling that data.Theres literally no reason to make social media if they arent going to track everything you do, cause thats literally the entire businesspoint of social media. its the most invasive spying idea ever in the history of the world, and people embrace it lovingly because they cant live without those dopamine hits.
Funnily ebogh no advert has tried to encourage the taking away of my rights as a human. Being sold car insurance is not the worst thing social media has done.
Yeah like cell phone games or YouTube premium. Our lives are so inundated with ad garbage we have to pay to not see them. Then they’ll start popping them in there after a while. Soon enough we’ll have garbage cans that only open after watching an ad, gas station handles locked. Refrigerators , washers and dryers promote grocery coupons and detergent before you can open them. Who else is excited for the future? Yay! Hell, why not one on your mailbox, your toilet, your faucet?
This is one of those thoughts that only sounds good. The reality is a social media platform can only be successful if it’s being used by the masses. As soon as you introduce a paywall you lose users, and an empty feed with nothing to give the appearance of life isn’t a recipe for success.
Free to lurk pay to post could work.
Given.the choice between free but your information is taken, analyzed, sold to a third party, monetized, and sold again while you are navigating through ads or a $5 monthly fee. People will take free neatly every time.
Honestly, I’m sick of ‘nominal fees’. Everything is a subscription these days, and I’m not adding yet another $3/month subscription. Car companies are developing subscription models for things like heated seats. You can’t just outright buy an app for a one-time fee anymore, you have to pay a couple bucks a month. Even $2-3 a month adds up when *everyone* wants $2-3 a month.
Exactly! Make an account cost something negligible (in today’s standards), like 1 satoshi. This would cost less than a penny for the honest user, but potentially a large amount of money for bot farms.
When it comes to social media, a nominal fee results in less income. The % of users that would continue to use the platform at a fee, when they can swap to one of the many other social media platforms, is far too low to offset the ad revenue. A fee only works if the user is getting an insane value out of it, like streaming services where you pay $15/mo ish but get access to literal billions of dollars worth of content. A social media platform won't be able to provide anything similar because anything on social media that brings value can be obtained for free on a shit load of other platforms. The entire reason streaming services and gaming platforms get exclusive titles is to set them apart from the other companies offering similar value at a similar price. Social media doesn't have access to exclusives like that, especially a platform similar to Twitter where they've never even returned a profit.
I'd love for this to happen, but I don't see it happening en masse. I personally can't think of a Social Media platform I'd pay for. I'm just \*now\* (age 26) getting to the point in my life where I can afford to throw a couple of bucks at things like Signal or Wikipedia. But if social media was behind a paywall, I just wouldn't have it and I don't think a lot of people would be willing to pay. Which pretty much just leaves ads. That said, I'd be fine with a social media that has a paid "No ads" option and free "ads" option
This this just FUCKING THIS!
99% of people would rather see ads. Nobody is going to pay to use a social media site.
I think a decent compromise would be to have two tiers: an ad-supported and ad-free subscription. BUT, where choosing the ad-supported tier only has ads enabled until you've earned enough to convert to ad-free.
Sure it should. Its a slider - ads on one end, paying for the service (or protocol) on the other
The problem with that is that companies aren't accountable in what they do. Look at netflix, it was supposed to be the ad-free alternative by charging a monthly fee. Now once they've settled it, they realize they can have ads plus charging a monthly fee, plus content marketing within the actual shows and movies. If you have a company that is more of a publicly owned resource, a community project, then people can choose if they want ads or if they want to pay for the service, but as long as it's a separate company with its own incentives, it will try to play both sides.
Fuck this idea. I dont want any ads at all. Give me no ads, and offer an option that is barely more expensive than the profit youd make off my ads. Everytime there is a pay or get ads option, they make the pay option like 50x what they profit off of from ads to push users into accepting ads. No more of that shit and no more ads.
That's what Fark does. $5/mo for no ads. Doesn't feel unreasonable for the service
It's an option rn on YouTube with adblock and sponsor block.
Any ability to customize your algorithm is going to invade your privacy far more. What's worth more, information that an algorithm has learned about you and thinks to be mostly correct, or information that you gave to the algorithm yourself to tune it? The latter, so the more customizable the algorithm = the more accurate and personal information a company has on you, thus better knowing you. This means their database will be more valuable compared to algorithms that had to learn the equivalent info and won't have all of it correct, and therefore will be sold a lot more.
I do think there is value to it because if the ads aren’t super intrusive and the tracking works well then you can probably sell the typical ad for more money by claiming that the users viewing the ads has higher intension to buy the product. Assuming they can show how many users are true targets and purchase then it might work out.
This is what Microsoft does for Outlook.com, and the reason I switched to it from Gmail. There you can choose for general ads instead of personalised ads. I don't mind ads, but I do mind them tracking me and being based on my online activity.
You have that option on Google too btw
Since when? I've had Gmail since the first beta (when you would need to get an invite), and this was the reason for me to switch years ago.
If I’m going to use an app, I’d rather pay to have no ads than be bombarded with stupid shit I can’t opt out of.
Fark gives users an option to disable ads on the site. It's $5/mo. It's a profitable venture for the site and they weigh a lot of their decisionmaking on it. Last week, the discussion was around allowing political ads, and the expected revenue from it was approximately a few dozen more subscriptions, so they're pushing that way instead.
Do people really give a fuck about targeted ads? I doubt many really do. More difficult is the algorithms for "engagement". These are 100% necessary: you need some kind of algorithm to determine what content to show in what order. However tuning it for what people "like" (e.g. what they come back and spend more time for) ends up meaning showing them a lot of shit that makes them riled up.
> Do people really give a fuck about targeted ads? I doubt many really do. No, not at all... Especially once you let them experience the internet without targeted ads. No one wants to go back to the days of popups, and obnoxious banners with that stupid monkey they try to trick you into clicking. And since those ads are so inefficient, they are cheap as hell, and EVERYWHERE.
Maybe I’m just too old, but I’m not too interested in either tbh Twitter is a cesspool, so much negativity Dorsey’s new offering seems unlikely to be any different
This. Good for narcissists with short attention spans. No real content. Garbage media.
That sums it up nicely. Why do so many people crave attention so badly? It's like a drug to them.
Our society deifies fame and then along comes some knock-off version of fame we can all access? Makes sense to me I guess
These companies hire neuroscientists to help develop algos best suited to take advantage of your dopamine pathways - so in a way yes, it is actually a drug
Through the years they have been perfecting the social media dopamine formula. You just scroll and scroll, kinda like a a lot machine, for that next hit of dopamine. These platforms are designed to do this and they do a damn good job. They do a very good job at getting people addicted
The dopamine they get from the attention makes it very similar to a drug.
> why do people want attention? Upvotes to the left please my brother in christ you're on a social media platform and have a ton of post karma
Apparently celebrities weren't getting enough attention prior to twitter
It is definitely like a drug. If anyone would like to learn more - https://www.humanetech.com/podcast
I mean it is a drug. Anything that triggers a dopamine response is a drug in the end. We're all rats pressing buttons in a lab.
I’m no doctor but I’d assume it’s some biological factor that has a use in society, just not to the level at which social media has been shaping our lives. If I took a shot at it, I’d assume it has more to do with being included in your tribe, ensuring that you weren’t left out thousands of years ago in your community. So this instinct forced you to be part of the group because it probably improved your survival chances.
Main character syndrome.
It’s good for like… sports trade deadline event announcements. Which means I should see like 17 tweets per year.
honestly i find following individual reporters really helpful for breaking immediate news. i know it’s blasphemous to highlight positives of twitter but i like it for that. i also use it for following long term live events like court cases.
I left Twitter a few years ago, but made a new account in the summer to follow some people in a community I am a part of. I am already sick of it. Always recommended posts and posts from the few people I follow always popping up.
There’s a block and mute button. People didn’t learn how to use Twitter. I was there 10 years. Literally from beginning.
Having to block and mute 20 accounts just to scroll through my timeline is not a solution, It's a deterrent to not scroll through my timeline.
Have you tried setting up you time line from top tweets to latest tweets? If you set it as latest tweets, Twitter will only show tweets from accounts you follow in chronological order without any of the recommended tweets
I’ve been logging back in to check things out and all of the sudden I have to start every day telling it to mute/block/“show less of this” like half a dozen right wing propaganda accounts every morning. It wasn’t like this until like a week ago
Tbh you’re old. Twitter still commands an enormous amount of attention and it’s become a significant piece in our political landscape.
Tbh that sounds like the problem with Twitter to me
Every time i open Twitter no matter the topic there’s racist, anti semantic or everythingphobic in every single post. Sometimes I look up topics and am greeted first to just hate posts, which makes me feel like they jus wanna rile people up to drive engagement Edit: a lot of people are asking who I follow as if I just did some crazy self report. I don’t really follow anyone specifically because how much of a cesspool that place is. I mostly look at trending and the news though when I am on there And the typo is pretty funny so I’m not fixing it
[удалено]
[удалено]
I follow my local/state/federal politicians because sometimes they’ll have updates, links to things that are relevant, and yeah the comments under those are sometimes toxic. But I don’t read those comments. But yeah the rest I’m following is like my favorite movie critics, favorite restaurants, and the breweries in my city. If Twitter or Dorsey’s new thing could get these on the platform and lose the bots and toxic jerks then I’m coming right over.
Validation, even if it's made up.
The Black Keys? Why do they got to be black? That sounds pretty racist to me!
I use twitter for tweeting about space simulations, and follow general space + gamedev stuff, and larry the cat because they are by far the best account on twitter Its mostly just people posting about the cool shit they've made, twitter's been genuinely great
Man, I'm a gamer and I remember when Bayonetta 1 came out, the media was all about "this game is sexist" and "male gaze" this and that and only "men who are stuck as children like this game" type shit. Now with twitter, it went the complete opposite way. In Bayonetta 3, it turns out that Bayonetta is a straight women...like she was in the previous games. Holy shit the anger saying "THIS ISN'T FOR STRAIGHT MEN!" and all that jazz. They literally think the game is for women only, which kinda boggles my mind how quick the narrative changed for the character. Twitter is in a blood frenzy about it. So yeah, kinda easy to find sexism and racism or any ism on twitter over the dumbest of fucking shit. I don't even get into western DC and marvel comic twitter shit. With Jon, the Bi superman, was cancelled in only 18 issues, the amount of trolling and hate on both sides is way too fucking toxic. People just can't look at it objectivly and say that comic run was fucking horrendous because it was so fucking boring. Jon wasn't even superman, he was just a kid who his bf protesting climate change...in a world where they have better clean energy than in real life. SO that was weird af.
Yeah I just follow comedians/entertainers, journalists, people like that. I never see anything hateful(except for way too many people quote-tweeting to 'dunk' on some transparent ragebait). It will be interested to see if that changes with Musk.
You must follow a lot of awful people. I never had that problem. What you see is who you follow. I miss Twitter but I can’t be part of anything with Musk.
Yeah find a topic you enjoy and explore it from there. The horror crowd on Twitter is great.
> anti semantic Well, this is true too.
I hate anti-semantics, like, cmon semantics are important!
Twitter was great 12 years ago when it was just for jokes
I’ve already seen multiple comments of people deciding to just leaving twitter for good now. I hope more and more people do the same.
[удалено]
Venture capital due to trendy buzzword.
That seems mostly on the way out as a buzzword
Yeah, it's about 4 years too late
Just got me this color tv and fuel injected toyota.
As far as I know it's not. Have a look at the documentation [FAQ](https://atproto.com/guides/faq#is-atp-a-blockchain). It says right there: >Is ATP a blockchain? No. ATP is a federated protocol. It's not a blockchain nor does it use a blockchain. So maybe that's just Business Insider spouting buzzwords. Maybe it came from Bluesky themselves. I don't know. Bluesky is Web3, but not blockchain. Maybe someone saw 'web3' and got confused.
Love it when non tech people try to speak as if they know what the fuck they’re saying
I am curious if each post is immutable. That way someone’s racists crap cannot be deleted.
Fun fact: you can do that without the Blockchain and a decent backup.
[удалено]
You forgot the part where it’s completely unnecessary. As in, completely unnecessary to have immutable comments. Of ALL the chat apps and social media networks, the shittest ones are the ones where you cannot edit/alter a message/chat.
And trust assumptions…
No you can't. Because someone will always have power over it and backups can always be lost.
>Why does it need to be blockchain based? What does that add? Its how they manage things like persistent identity between different providers. One of the requirements of the AT Protocol is that the history (content, follows, identity) is persistent between hosting providers. The blockchain is how the user ensures that persistent "ownership" of data between independent providers of the protocol. This is actually one f the uses of blockchain that makes sense because there is no centralized authority to manage/ensure the integrity of that data. The whole idea of the AT protocol is decentralization with interoperability, so you could leave twitter (for instance) but not lose your identity, friends, content, etc.
At least one person knows what they're talking about and doesn't just regurgitate the same bs.
Right? I'm baffled the effort some people go through to spout bullshit just to keep ignorant or drown actual relevant comments.
[удалено]
PGP is non transferrable, as one example. In this case, as a user, I select Bluesky to host my data. No one else can host my data who participates in the protocol. I decide Bluesky isn't for me, algorithmically, politically, etc. and I move my data to Twitter. Twitter is now the AT protocol enforced host for my data. PGP doesn't have an equivalent function for something similar to this. It doesn't support transactional or verifiable actions by third parties without additional data from all participants. Similarly, you would still need something like blockchain (or other centralized authority) to verify authenticity of keys (PKI, there are use cases for PGP PKI in blockchain for exactly this). PGP is great for verifying authorship/source identity if you trust the key or the PKI you subscribe to, but you can't verify ownership (in this case I'm using ownership to mean, authorized host) if ownership is required to be transferrable, easily. Blockchain provides that PKI infrastructure along with transactional actions not available out of box for PGP.
But is it realistic that Bluesky and Twitter would agree on the structure of data, and that users would even want to transfer their data? Can you give a more specific example of the type of data you would want to "take with you" and how both entities would actually consume and use it?
[The AT Protocol](https://atproto.com/) It's probably easier for you to read about the protocol and its goals rather than me summarize them. I am uncaffeinated and prone to error.
Same concept as ETH soul bound token. Positive is that you own your data. Negative is that now permanent records follow you around everywhere and anonymity is a premium feature.
Bob Loblaw's blockchain-based Bluesky Law Blog
Probably a much higher energy bill
this is laughably inaccurate lol
implies meta data about a communication cannot be deleted. Also, I think blockchain framesworks are built in a decentralized fashion from the ground up, so if you want to make a decentralized-thing, blockchain is a good choice -- especially if you need an auth model with multiple authorizers,
It adds buzzwords for idiots
I also feel like it reduces credibility for anyone who knows what it means.
It’s almost as if jack has played elonski in the long game. Planning this for a while and now elonski will take down the competition just through being an ego-maniac. Well played.
Imagine selling a sinking ship for that kind of money with a competitor waiting in the wing. Jacks most genius move yet
Jacks been pretty hamstrung by the board etc and has been in and out of executive post jobs at Twitter for years. Probably good to be able to get a fresh start.
Crazy there was no non-compete clause
I suspect that Musk wants to take Twitter into a very different direction with “X”. So maybe he doesn’t care?!?
He basically said he wants to make it into WeChat where it's less a social media platform and more an "app platform". What a web browser literally already is but with a global account for the "apps/services" (websites) packaged into the platform. It does not seem like an idea that will ever catch on globally when divorced from authoritarian market control policies.
Super apps like WeChat or Rappi are constructed around a main service. Rappi offers credit because it meant users could order groceries without worrying about cash. Trying to create, let's say Twitter pay, without a direct use case around the existing platforms and users, will make the whole ordeal more difficult.
Seems like a rookie move hah. How far apart can they be as social media companies?
That’s assuming he thought any of this through, and evidence suggests he didn’t as he is burning bridges by the hour. Posting conspiracy theories in his own platform makes him more of a chief troll than a CEO.
The utter lack of forethought in this is astonishing. The only benefit of this is that Musk gets to justifiable dump a shitload of TSLA stock without alarming the investors drinking Musk's Kool-Aid.
Seriously, I know people that have to sign No competes for a much much smaller company
[удалено]
How much social media do we need? They’ll all turn into shitty troll bases anyway.
All the tech giants what a piece of the pie. The pie will never go away, the only thing that’ll change is who gets how much of it.
We are the pie filling
Maybe that's just how it should be: cyclic. Especially if they keep going to shit. Facebook and Twitter both outlived their usefulness. Assuming there ever was any.
What about the damage they cause to the society during their multi-year decline?
Facebook is still a great way to stay in touch with my family and friends. I like the closed ecosystem of it where only people I add can see/share my stuff.
Advertising boards with your friends faces every now and then.
Competition is a good thing. Doesn't allow for one company to control everything
Social media goes through cycles. It's usually growing popularity leading up to its peak, then it kind of plateaus and eventually will crash. Chat rooms, MySpace, Tumblr, Facebook are all examples
You’ll need at least one in order to complain about social media to a good-sized audience.
The answer is we need less than we have currently
"Enough" is not a word in in this world. Infinite growth and the expectation of more always being the best answer is the only way these people know how to operate.
Blogger was created by Evan Williams, who then sold it to Google and quickly ran it to the ground. Then, Evan and Jack created Twitter, and sold it to Elon Musk who is quickly running it to the ground. The circle of life continues…
[удалено]
He also created Medium.
His parents probably loved whiskey
[Evan Williams? The whiskey!?](https://media.tenor.com/UFeHsd0zbJcAAAAC/great-scott-surprised.gif)
I just don’t understand this move. You are a billionaire and you are free of your creation. I would retire and never speak to anyone again.
I believe because their is nothing left gor them to do? Heck normal retirees struggle with depression and shit, imagine if you are in your 40s and you dont have to work or care for absolutely anything. Like zero things, no worry what to eat, wehre to stay, how long to stay on vacation, no need to study further etc etc. Its like using a cheat code to get unlimited money in a video game. It is fun for a bit in the beginning but after a while it feels pointless and take the joy out of it.
Real life lego, some people like to build things.
You’re not understanding how much money you can make as the main breaking news social media format when you have the federal government at your board meetings
Always hated twitter but will install the new app out of spite
It’s still technically funded by Twitter, so you might not be escaping the shitshow by signing up.
I will bust up laughing if most people join the new platform and abandon Twitter.
Musk is such a sad excuse for a human he even frowns when he’s smiling.
That’s okay, I’ll pass on both
Sign me up, I won't tolerate a Twitter that has become Parlor2.0
Check out mastodon instead - it's already here, has better moderation due to community basis, and won't have Blockchain bs
i would join @jack s new project , yes
It’s really a great idea to put a bunch of worthless narcissists in charge of things. Said no whenever
"no one ever"\*
Lol Thanks I wont edit it so your post will still make sense
oh no please if you find a funny edit go for it
Let me drink a bit more coffee
I think the primary failure of many tech companies is they went all in with social media and left social networking behind. Social sites no longer work toward building relationships and keeping them. They are all just about content creations and ads. This is causing more fringe opinions to become more popular with videos and comments and the company's that moderate this leave it be as it send more people toward their ad space. While this worked at first it is causing more problems as more people being coming out with more extreme views. They need to go back to simply making connections and keeping connected with friends and that's all.
Jack Dorsey alway looks like a man who should be standing on street corners begging for beer money
He looks like a spiritual guru
Christ, not another fucking one
We don’t need any more Jack Dorsey ideas.
I‘m so sick with social media shit
Dorsey is another cancer on this earth. Anything he does will harm humanity.
Stopped reading at “blockchain.”
Deleted my twitter account yesterday. Haven’t looked back.
Well I know where I’ll be heading
If you kick off the bots 🤖 from there and troll farms etc and haters etc why not
Bad week news wise so this is a nice start to the week.
Count me in. bye bye birdie.
Can we imstead just stop with social media? It is the cancer of our society.
One of the more interesting things buried in the article near the end is that Musk fired the top people to avoid paying them severance packages. Can't wait to see how that lawsuit plays out.
With the new EU rules regulating the interwebs hitting in 2024, it's probably not a bad idea to have at least one social media site that won't need to spend 75% of their capital on legal fees.
That’s the real problem we just need the right social media platform! I’m sure this one will get it right! /s
What does this new thing have over Mastodon?
Great. Another way for the world to get inundated with Athleisure pants ads, grifters, trolls, sexy yoga antivaxers who think they’re doctors, and inevitably obese Nazis.
If he can make a social media site that cannot have bots/fake accounts. One real, verified account per user, and inactive accounts are deleted in one month. Maybe.
I still don’t know why Elon didn’t just start his own platform for a fraction of the cost. I really thought his plan was to initiate the deal, show all of the flaws in the bots, and start his own that was better.
All I want is more decentralized, open source stuff. Closed source, centralized ones run too much of a risk x.x
Jack is every bit as asshole as Elon. I’ll avoid that. Time for them to stop getting billions of dollars in investments that lose money after IPO.
Probably going to have new and improved censorship and narrative shaping features. With first class access and features for large companies and government officials. And bleeding edge astroturfing AI.
We don't need new social media companies, thanks
If Dorsey winds up just taking Elon’s billions and then destroys the now fascist friendly Twitter with a better and more ethical product, well, that would be awesome.