Back

@silverwizard I have so very much to say, ironically this is not the forum.

@silverwizard@convenient.em No nothing like that, but all alright a preview then.

Replacement.
Social Media did not spring forth from nothing in the recent past, for some the concept has been real for their entire lifespan. The medium changes names, ownership, format protocol, speed and reach. It is replaced, updated, augmented, or taken out back and shot in the head ( ) as needed.

Is there a need for replacement?

of protocol?
of format?
of owner?

or

Can existing technology be leveraged to augment and enhance the usage of social media as a valuable service and resource for the users regardless of protocol, format, owner, admin, or walled garden digital prison choices?

I say No, maybe, No, Hell No, and Yes.

since you asked.

@silverwizard Globally, you are going to be, at the very best, less than effective at any legislative goal.

Technical and Social are the areas of influence that can be effectively dealt with.

"disallow groups" is already on the wrong foot.

"Not everything is for me" needs to be a fundamental understanding of every user and seems lost in all the noise of every topic.

Treading on the various rights of anyone to setup and run their own social network their own way is kinda invalidating your whole point, isn't it?

Which means no matter how much you may disagree with their format/protocol/admin/monetization/datacollection/owner you give them that right to protect yours.

And no matter how correct your interpretation of the corporate evils and privacy molesting shenanigans, they have users you will not reach that deserve fundamental aspects of social media regardless of their ill informed choices.

2 choices, compete or change everything without changing anything.

@silverwizard #QuietPart

@silverwizard They don't actually have any power, they have users and money.

Facilitate their users but let users learn through usage that the money, content, data and power always belonged to the user.