15 Comments
User's avatar
Dave's avatar

A better idea, if I may. A public social media platform. Its algorithm would allow user control but by default it would be programmed to connect you with your fellow humans directly, outside of the platform, and to discourage excessive use by getting more boring the longer you’re on it. “Hey user, you’ve been browsing this network good an hour; send a text message to one of your friends asking how they’re doing.”

Expand full comment
dualmindblade's avatar

Unless you get rid of the more addictive parasitic social media platforms then most people aren't going to use the boring public one. We have, and have had since at least 2012, decentralized social media services that work really well and don't use attention leeching algorithms, apart from a few niche communities people don't use them.

Expand full comment
anzabannanna's avatar

On the brighter side: power of a platform and makeup of the userbase can make up for low absolute user count, though it's hard to pull off.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

I am aware of that. I am a part of a community on Mighty that works pretty well in that regard. But it’s rare. People are human animals and subject to relatively easy psychological manipulation! A municipal platform might have to have some unique and exclusive, attractive element, like the ability to reserve municipal services, first invitations to public events, and who knows what else.

Expand full comment
anzabannanna's avatar

> I am a part of a community on Mighty that works pretty well in that regard.

What does it work well *for* though? I am thinking maximal influence on the greater world, despite small user numbers.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

Yeah, not that. Works well to foster community, connection, and adherence to norms within a sex-positive poly community. Doesn’t go beyond that but as far as it goes, it goes great.

Expand full comment
anzabannanna's avatar

Now that sounds like a community I'd join!!

Plus: what if "All you need is love" is actually true?

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

I forgot to mention Kagi! I apologize. Please try it; the first 100 searches are free.

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

Facebook's addictive, sure; less so with the removal of reels, sponsored posts et cetera. What do you think of extant tactics for minimizing addiction and manipulation, e.g. Firefox, DuckDuckGo, RSS feeds, adblockers, Tor... I hear that X and TikTok are more addictive than FB, but they drive me crazy, and I avoid them, so I can't tell. As for political manipulation, I'm a lifelong Libertarian Party ticket voter, so most of the Republicrap stuff misses me.

Expand full comment
Seth Finkelstein's avatar

Sigh ... You are not the first person to have an idea like this.

Basically, it just costs too much. And too few people are willing to actually pay for it. The next reply is to suggest it should be some sort of grant-supported nonprofit. Again, the amounts don't work out, by orders of magnitude. A government-run public service would be a nice idea, but we can barely even have National Public Radio. It's a deep political allocation of resources problem, not a technological problem.

Expand full comment
The Scholar's avatar

I like it. I'm into computer science my self and all it took was the word "algorithm" to draw me in. I might if I get smart enough for it put the idea out there. It does sound beneficial and would cure a problem I have also noticed and experienced.

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

There are a variety of ad-blockers, including website-specific ones like chrome extensions that block ads and reels on Facebook. My preferred general ad-blocker is Ublock Origin.

Expand full comment
Philosophy bear's avatar

This is true, but you're still being:

1. Kept addicted

2. Sorted into categories and made into something that can be sold to advertisers by selective bombardment with category relevant content and shaping of your interests.

3. Potentially politically manipulated (e.g. Musk's various vendettas)

Even if you can't see the ads (yes, even 2, even if you don't ultimately see the ads).

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

Books addicted me before there was an internet; datastarve hurts more than hunger, less than thirst. As for 2, that's what browsers are *for*: if I search for libertarian treatises I don't want Mein Kampf on the list, you know?

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

And hey: Firefox, DuckDuckGo... there are alternatives to Google, though deGooglifying completely is likely impracticable.

Expand full comment