@Gargron I don't care so much about federated or not, but I want the advertising and investor money out of our social lives. It poisons everything, and it has thoroughly poisoned the big social networks. And the fediverse is the best available alternative at the moment.
Yup, I agree.
One tech idea is having peer-to-peer instead of servers, such as Scuttlebutt and Briar?
But yes, the bulk of the solution has to come from tougher regulation. Newspapers used to be heavily regulated to prevent monopolies and abuse of power. There should be a recognition that social media has become even more powerful than papers were.
In the mean time, I guess we just have to do the best we can with the tools available.
Not saying it is not helpful or necessary but the real revolution has to be in social attitudes.
In this respect, remember that #change always comes from a determined minority.
One concern is that social attitudes are being artificially manipulated through unregulated social media and particularly hypertargeted advertising.
So, in a way regulation and social attitudes may not be such separate issues.
But are they? We have heard much about it but I'm unconvinced that, if anything, it does more than reaffirm people in their preexisting opinions thus polarising discourse. I would be grateful for any pointers to quality academic research on the subject.
Polarising people is exactly the social change I mean, it divides people from each other and makes rational discourse more difficult.
I am not an academic but my understanding is that Facebook is less than forthcoming about opening its order books to outside researchers, particularly on political topics :/
Political advertising Show more
I mean things like CA''s activities where they set up an apparently non-political "personality test" to gather data on individuals' political tendencies, then sent targeted ads to play on those tendencies.
It doesn't mean changing someone's opinion, it means steering them the way you want in order to win a vote.
Even if they solidly oppose you, you might still convince them not to vote for anyone, or perhaps to vote for a third candidate who has no chance of winning.
You mean Cambridge Analytics or whatever they called themselves? That was two old Etonians full of shite, but a posh accent sells (at first anyway) and the rags love a good scare story. This was the post cold war version of mind control stories from the 60s.
CA was far more than two Etonians, its parent is owned by Mercer and he continues to employ Nix et al. Bannon also worked at CA.
That article leans heavily on pro-Trump Republican sources, who (with all due respect) are hardly likely to be reliable on this topic.
If these tactics were effective, they would also be potentially illegal, and they would be crazy to shout about them from the rooftops.
Whistleblowers from CA painted a very different picture:
Case in point. I trust you know who is Simon Travaglia:
From what was in the FB leaks, the conventional ads are irrelevant except as a payment method.
Officially, FB doesn't sell personal data to anyone. In theory, they analyse people's data without revealing it, then match up adverts to people, which is their equivalent of adwords.
Unofficially, FB would allow companies to use known-to-be-leaky apps to obtain personal data free of charge, on the understanding that those companies would also buy conventional ads.
Also, besides ads, social media content itself has an effect on society:
In the old days there were clearly authoritative sources (physical newspapers, radio, TV) that were legally accountable and professionally run. Extremist publications were rare and difficult to find.
Nowadays journalists publish side-by-side with hate groups on the same platforms, and it's very easy to publish completely fabricated news that newspapers would never have touched.
@61 @switchingsocial @Gargron
IRC hasn't really really been federated since the Eris incident, and AFAIK walled garden XMPP doesn't federate from the very beginning, so for all intents and purposes it may not be XMPP-based at all.
So AFAIK gmail is the only example where one party in a federated network gained a dominant position.
Correct, but the example wasn't about parties in a federated network, rather about services that by their very nature should be federated and collaborative instead of fragmented amongst competing players.
There is no reason other than commercial why a WhatsApp user cannot message someone on telegram or vice versa, or slack stopped doing irc. (Xmpp has gateways for this, though they feel in disuse).
In the first scenario, it's obvious from the beginning that the service is a walled garden, we can explain and show to the users how walled it is, and it doesn't exploit our openness.
OTOH, in the second scenario, the attacker is pretending to be one of us, hijacking our network's reputation, promising users that they can still contact the rest of the network, and then changing the rules after most of the users move in.
@xrevan86 Yep, that was my point. The current business model is fucked as it relies on hoarding users.
A saner business model could be along the lines of developing the protocol and then offer clients, hardware, services, etc., etc., that take advantage of it.