@bjoern “when Mark Zuckerberg was making Facebook in his dorm room bedroom, he probably wasn’t trying to make this dopamine-inducing tool”
Yes he was. He called his users “dumb fucks”. Can we please stop perpetuating this myth and giving the people who knowingly created this mess a pass with this “oops, they just wanted to make things better but ended up making things worse and accidentally becoming billionaires” narrative.
VC/startups/the Silicon Valley model is unethical.
@bob @bjoern He literally called the people who trust him “dumb fucks”: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook
Facebook's arc was so predictable from the off. It was all there to see. That is why I tire of the decade-too-late centrist takes on the dangers of Facebook from embedded journals that have been riding the FB convoy for years and still now feel compelled to warn their readers against the extremism of looking for alternatives or smear FOSS types & decentralists, often barely making a living, as Mr Robot style weirdos.
There's also a lack of concern from users. I can tell all the horror stories I want, but they still think it's just how things are. Especially because the platforms are free. No one pays for "unnecessary" services.
Don't know whether any of you would/could gain anything from the following, regardless I present the article:
"List of problems endemic to social media"
The last bullet-item currently on the list:
"• Apathy: The meta-problem. 90% of users don't care enough about the above problems to switch to better systems."
@bob @kcnightfang @aral @FerdiZ @bjoern Depends where you are and what demographics you mix with, I think. Penetration of these issues is higher in some places than others. In Prague, despite a very high proportion of IT types, there are the people you describe, but also a lot of people who either don't understand at all, who understand to some degree but are apathetic, and those I meet most often, people who are outright hostile when you bring up alternatives or problems with Facebook etc.
I hear this comparisons often and also used it in the past. Meanwhile I come to the conclusion that it is something you can't compare. Whether it is rational or not, people have a strong privacy feeling if it is about their friends, neighbors, etc who could know something private about them but not if something as anonymous as algorithm analysis it...
@FerdiZ @aral @krozruch @kcnightfang
@bob @FerdiZ @aral @krozruch @kcnightfang
That's why I no longer use such comparisons, in my experience they don't really help. In my view you need some "real world feature" no one else has to win the majority. Just copying what's already out there in a more privacy friendly way will not win on large scale - 1/3
@bob marketing and somehow giving you less freedom instead of more... cause that makes the feds happy
Just watched an old keynote by Jan Koum the other day... It's from MWC 2014, just when it was bought by Facebook. So many things that he assured about their future business model are so dated now (based on paid subscription, not free, etc.) that I'm not sure even he believed them there. I will cut some stuff from the video and post it here, I think it's interesting to see.
I don't see the relationship between being Free Software and the amount of Spam send in a system. Said that, XMPP spam is a real pain, it made my main JID I used for many years useless. While we have systems in place to handle mail spam quite good, spam is still a unsolved problem in XMPP.
What I get from what he said is that when it's free software (well, "open source" in their own words) the service is more likely to become an "open net", then anyone running their own server means more ways of exploiting it (which would lead to ways to prevent it I guess). Having said that, the questioner mentioned Telegram, which is a non-federating closed server.
So he's just kind of dodging the real issue.
You know what generates more spam? Bussinesses.
@aral @bjoern @bob @FerdiZ @kcnightfang The more I think about these issues the more I see that marketing works well to make invisible what those who have the money and networks wish to keep invisible, and manipulate the image both of a given product and those who would offer up valid criticisms of it. I feel the impact of some of this regularly because, being autistic, some of the clever smears of FOSS types and "edgy" SM by proprietary firms of all kinds works very effectively against me..
@aral @bjoern @bob @FerdiZ @kcnightfang I sometimes suspect that in the Czech Republic and other post-communist countries, the privacy arguments Bob comes across have not made so much headway and I absolutely accept that among those communities (typically the ex-pats I work with), the network effect is the main barrier, but I think there is as much PR power going into this area at every level as there ever was with tobacco and oil, and it is working at all of the above levels to various effect.
@aral @bjoern @bob @FerdiZ @kcnightfang For the federation perhaps the best kind of approach could be one of federated constructive dissent whereby we each take our own experience and knowledge and work on whichever part of the problem we are best placed to take on whether it is on the level of tooling or outreach. Each of us will have a slightly different reading but that would be a problem only if we had to agree on a single putative monolithic solution to what we are each of us confronting.
@krozruch @aral @bjoern @bob @FerdiZ
I agree that the network effect is the main barrier. It's what keeps me on Facebook. And for social media that's very true. I was thinking more of infrastructure like email and cloud storage and VPNs.
I think people would care about privacy if they felt like it was in their control, and right now it's just not a factor. Also, companies have used data to make things "convenient"
I'm just thinking out loud, and I'm still caught up in all these things. The problem is structural, and consumer choices aren't sufficient to solve it. I think there's good work to be done, there has to be multiple approaches.
Re: userbase momentum re Facebook etc.,
The following essay is related imo; but "unfortunately" it is behind the standard Medium spyware paywall. Venture forth at your own risk and/or convenience.
@aral @bjoern @bob @FerdiZ @kcnightfang It's kind of ironic now, but I first heard this come up in a talk by Jacob Appelbaum at CCC a few years ago (via YouTube). Around the same time I was working on an essay, The Pwned Mind. I developed the concept of tag muting whereby tropes are created as systems of associations, & maintained so that they may be readily slapped on people who challenge the dominant narrative. Want to mute Occupy? Easy, here's an off-the-shelf anarchist tag. FOSS: a 'hacker'.
@bjoern @bob @FerdiZ @aral @krozruch @kcnightfang part of the problem is that it's invisable. It's easy to adsime something's not happening if you can't see it for yourself, eslically for non-technical people. If facebook were required to send you a letter in the mail telling you what tbey kniw aboit you, people would care
@aral @bjoern We should never forget that Facebook's core business at launch had multiple competitors, and was replicable easily and quickly by multiple groups. Facebook didn't win because it was the best, it won because it was the tricksiest. Facebook was a cool "exclusive" invite only club, right up until network effects and FOMO were strong enough it didn't need to be cool or exclusive any more. That was never scale hacking (see: Competitors scaled faster), that was calculated people hacking.
This is my personal Mastodon.