Unless you're trying to create a gigantic following (presumably to make money), why would that matter?
If you're utilizing social media to communicate with your social circle (family, friends) and you can federate the platform you're on, they can see your content on your site in the same feed they see others' content on their sites too.
With federation, the content can be stored on any platform, with hooks to pull in into your feed.
At that point, the differentiators are UX quality, level and type of moderation, data licensing model and tracking/spying/ad components.
In this model, those who choose to host their own content and/or support node(s) which cater to your needs have a distinct advantage over those that don't.
Want to read Trump's blather or bask in the sweet glow of alternate facts? Host/find a node that will host such garbage and/or federate with other nodes that will.
Want to send photos of the kids to Grandma? There can be (or you can host) a node that's got you covered.
Want to discuss Barn owl husbandry? There can be a node for that.
Gotta have those furry circle jerk videos? Natch.
In a decentralized environment, there's always a place for everyone.
Is that what you think this is about? Money? Censorship is almost always about power and the desire to destroy opposition. It is a means to instill fear and stifle the discussion of any 'unpopular' ideas. It separates people. Money comes later.
I have few issues in communicating with friends or family. But now I have to think twice about what I say in public. Conversations must be limited to topics approved by the tech giants and the people who hold power. And I can't easily hear what a lot of other people say. It's definitely limiting. McCarthyism again?
Your solutions are interesting but don't address the problem I'm interested in. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
This sounds like it would work to avoid censorship but I'm pretty sure I don't fully understand the mechanics of how distribution is handled and how users would find the appropriate site that hosts the content the user is seeking in cases where their normal node decides to block it.
I was hasty in dismissing this line of thought. There's more merit to it than I initially thought.
There are several ways to address that issue:
1. Use a site that doesn't censor (or at least doesn't censor what you want to hear). Federate (you really should look at the links re: federation I listed a few comments back -- specifically, ActivityPub and Diaspora federation) with other sites. If the big boys are required to allow you to pull information, you can still see what's going on there;
2. All these sites have mobile "apps" (really just inferior interfaces to their web environment), so you (and/or others -- and if these sites are forced to open up their platforms it will definitely happen) can create/use an app that allows you to access mulitple platforms using the appropriate credentials;
3. Vote with your feet, as I did. A site can't censor you if you don't use it. In a decentralized environment, that's less (if at all) of an issue.
I'm sure there are many other ways to do so. Those are the ones that just popped off the top of my head.
In the interest of compactness, I'm going to respond to your later comment here.
>Is that what you think this is about? Money? Censorship is almost always about power and the desire to destroy opposition. It is a means to instill fear and stifle the discussion of any 'unpopular' ideas. It separates people. Money comes later.
I don't pretend to know what you think. However, it seems to me that most attempts to create large groups of "followers" are focused on building brands and making money.
I am a strong supporter of the freedom of expression and the Marketplace of Ideas[0]. I abhor censorship.
But I don't really get your point here. If Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/Joe's Hip Hop Emporium/Bernadette's Universe of Knitting Resources don't want to include your (or anyone else's) voice, those are their free speech rights and they should not be forced to host speech they don't want to host.
So what, exactly, is it that you want? A place(s) where people can share their thoughts and ideas freely and come together with other place(s) that want to participate in that?
Or do you want to force others to host the speech that you like, whether they want to do so or not?
I'm all for the former (which is what decentralization is all about), but fiercely against the latter as it impinges on the right of free speech.
>Your solutions are interesting but don't address the problem I'm interested in. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
That may be so, but if that's the case I never understood the problem in which you're interested.
Honestly, I didn't find your comments particularly thoughtful or well researched.
However, I'm glad we could have this discussion too. Thanks!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas
Edit: Clarified my thoughts and added referenced link.
Decentralized platforms like Diaspora may be viable alternatives someday, but my possibly ill-informed pragmatic gut tells me they won't be viable alternatives for many years to come.
Thanks for your patience and persistence. It was interesting!
Thanks for responding.
I'm glad you understood (at least I hope you did) my comment wasn't meant as an attack on you. Far from it, it was just my honest assessment. And I do appreciate the discussion.
>Decentralized platforms like Diaspora may be viable alternatives someday, but my possibly ill-informed pragmatic gut tells me they won't be viable alternatives for many years to come.
Network effects[0] give platforms like Facebook and Twitter their power and influence.
Creating (and more importantly, using) decentralized alternatives is, IMHO, the only reasonable way to counteract that advantage.
Which is why I made the suggestions WRT APIs (to level the playing field and give alternatives a chance), ISP upload speeds (to make self-hosting viable), content licenses (to give control back to the creators of content, rather than the aggregators) and tracking/advertising opt-ins (to reduce the money making power and incentives to track/spy/collect data of the big guys).
Your pragmatic gut is pretty spot on. Without at least some of the above, alternative platforms will have a hard time gaining traction (although they do exist and are viable in a number of areas) in the social media space.
I'd say that the success of decentralized alternatives rests on the willingness of people like you and me to use and advocate for those alternatives.
Perhaps it's time to install a Diaspora pod[1] or Mastodon instance[2]?
>Thanks for your patience and persistence. It was interesting!
Likewise.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
I wish I shared your optimism. The level of censorship currently being imposed and surprisingly supported by news media is frightening and disheartening. Twitter just permanently banned Trump claiming that his tweet declining to attend the inauguration was inciting violence!? Scumbags indeed. I wonder if HN moderators will shadow ban me for this comment that mentions Trump?