I have a general skepticism when it comes to decentralization of social media. It's not on the concept per-se which is great, but how it's:
1) Marketed or viewed as something inferior. Eg. Diaspora (https://joindiaspora.com/) went downhill the moment it was announced that it had received funding from Mark Zuckerberg.
2) Operated as the competitor of a mainstream and centralised platform. The centralised platforms are good at building networks and if that task is added on the user to complete, it cannot become a viable competitor. Eg. you have to develop your own network - you cannot be plug-and-play in real sense
3) Run as non-profit, mainstream alternative. That way, it's just there and not useful at all.
Associating Twitter and this initiative again moves it on the same path. They have something to show to the federal government for brownie points but deep-down, they also know how it'll end up.
1 comment
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 13.8 ms ] thread1) Marketed or viewed as something inferior. Eg. Diaspora (https://joindiaspora.com/) went downhill the moment it was announced that it had received funding from Mark Zuckerberg.
2) Operated as the competitor of a mainstream and centralised platform. The centralised platforms are good at building networks and if that task is added on the user to complete, it cannot become a viable competitor. Eg. you have to develop your own network - you cannot be plug-and-play in real sense
3) Run as non-profit, mainstream alternative. That way, it's just there and not useful at all.
Associating Twitter and this initiative again moves it on the same path. They have something to show to the federal government for brownie points but deep-down, they also know how it'll end up.