Wow, this is awesome! Great article, and we are at a point where this would actually be possible.
"A government-run alternative to Meta and other social networks could be doomed by wrong incentives, be it political meddling, spying or bureaucratic risk-aversion. However, a government-funded ecosystem could be incredibly powerful. What is Silicon Valley and its supposed innovations after all, if not the result of decades of cold war government largesse?
Things like server farms are best run by large, stable entities with oversight—perhaps Canada Post. A variety of independent entities could make use of the physical infrastructure to create innovative variations.
Open source software with a critical mass of users and contributors tends to create its own ecosystem of organizations—cooperatives, non-profits and for-profit companies—all with an established interest in giving back to the commons that sustains them.
On top of a Fediverse-style information base, different service providers fueled by government investments or grants could compete to provide the best way to access the same information."
Lovely thesis, weird title.
[Canada Post]'s large physical infrastructure and entrenched history in Canadian life could make Canada Post an ideal host for server farms.
Same could be said for almost every other government owned company? BoC and CBC would have been less weird examples, at least pick a company that is obviously linked to digital infrastructure.
Same could be said for almost every other government owned company?
Could it? I can’t think of any reason why the BoC or CBC would have large physical infrastructure (i.e. warehouses), especially ones seeing less and less use, ripe to be turned into data centres.
at least pick a company that is obviously linked to digital infrastructure.
Canada Post probably has some of the more interesting digital infrastructure of all the crown corps. The technology that is able to read the chicken scratches on envelopes and figure out where they need to go continues to amaze.
This sounds like the perfect solution to add onto their hundreds of millions of dollars in losses…
A public service doesn’t make losses, they’re a cost.
They aren’t a public service, they are a crown corporation. Which, other than being owned by the federal government, is operated just like any other private or publicly owned corporation. Their operations are funded by their revenues, not taxpayer funds, so no they aren’t a cost. They also just posted a Q2 before tax loss of $254 million. Which is a continual spiral down for a corporation that was profitable until 2018, due to a series of horrendous leadership and questionable decisions.
Ah, mea culpa, I posted in ignorance.
What should we do to change it?
How many times are we going to reinvent the wheel here before we realize that it is Eternal September that kills them all? This a people problem, not a technical problem. The solution to people problems is never wasting resources building more technology.
These platforms are getting worse because of monetization.
Corey Doctorow wrote a great piece on the “Enshittification” of TikTok that applies in general to social media platforms as a whole
No. You’ve missed the mark. There was no monetization strategy for Usenet. It was free, open, and distributed. And it was grand, until too many people came along and started shitting it up.
Every lame attempt to copy Usenet that has come since has ended up in the same place. They’re all find and dandy until too many people come along and start trying to pull it in so many undesirable directions, at which point using the service becomes awful and people move on to the next isolated community that is yet to be shitted up.
No matter what platform you put in front of the people, if they come, they are going to ruin it. A new, unpopulated, platform only buys you time as you wait for its Eternal September moment. It does not solve the actual problem.
I think we’re talking past each other. I’m talking about different problems with social media - not with the users, but the platforms themselves.
Here’s a few examples: Reddit cracking down on third-party apps, platforms requiring you to log in before viewing content, relentless tracking and privacy invasions, TikTok turning into a firehose of ads and sponsored content, and Amazon’s gradual transformation into a sketchy marketplace with systemically faked reviews and false advertising on products. These are less to do with the growth of the platform, and more to do with the pressure from management to extract money from users.
But yeah, I do get your point on how a relentless influx of new users can disrupt an existing community and create severe moderation challenges
I think we’re talking past each other.
I don’t think so. All I see in your examples are symptoms of a critical mass entering a platform and the inevitable tug-of-war that follows when disparate interests start tugging in their own preferred directions, at odds with the preferences of others on the platform. In other words, only a small community is able to maintain a shared set of interests for the platform.
and more to do with the pressure from management to extract money from users.
This is the same thing. If there is a money making opportunity, that can only be if some segment of the community want to give up their money. There was a tug-of-war and somebody won – the segment who want to pay for a certain kind of service, much to the chagrin of everyone else. Again, this is the outcome of a community growing too large and no longer being able to maintain a unified set of interests.
A new platform can buy you time because a new platform starts small and allows a community to establish a shared set of interests, but it is not a solution as once its Eternal September moment takes place someone will start the tug-of-war and shit it up in the process. It is not a technical problem that can be solved by throwing more technology at it. It is ultimately a people problem.
So, bringing us back to the beginning, why keep reinventing the wheel thinking this time will somehow be different? It’s not like we haven’t been here hundreds of times before.
I disagree that users really have any say in the direction of the platform. Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products, and so I don’t think it’s the competing interests of users that drive these changes. I see it as more of a conflict between users and owners.
- Platform begins with small user base
- Investors pour in capital to support and encourage the growth of the user base. At this stage the platform runs at a massive loss. This is when times are good for users.
- Investors, now with substantial influence, seek a return on investment by encouraging new anti-features on the platform.
Maybe this sounds like the same thing, but there are different solutions. If I understand you right, your solution to this problem is to restrict growth, which could allow for a more unified community that could push back against these changes. I would argue to change the incentives, change the governance model, so that the platform is publicly administered or administered by a non-profit or cooperative that is accountable to users, not shareholders. See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products
With respect, is it that you do not understand what money represents? Let me keep it simple: Money is just an IOU. Why would someone give an IOU to provide goods or services at a later point in time? The answer is because they received a good and/or service of equal value now.
Obviously some users are clambering for ads or crappy Amazon products if someone else is receiving money by offering them. If they were not, there would be no money for someone to collect. And those users showing up, with misaligned interests to others in the community, creates a tug-of-war effect. Eventually someone will win.
See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
Way back in the day I used to use a Usenet host operated by a co-operative. Technically, I was a partial owner of that server by virtue of being a user, which I think is even neater!
Usenet is still out there in operation, I guess, but let’s face it – it is, for all practical purposes, dead. If cunning ownership structures weren’t able to save it, what’s magically different this time? I really don’t see what lemmy.ca is doing that hasn’t already been tried many times before?
I still disagree with you but I don’t think either of us are going to convince each other. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I wasn’t around back in the Usenet days and it’s cool to hear about it and how you were involved.
What you’re talking about is called the tragedy of the commons and the eternal September is just one example.
The headline and the article should be more related than this.
