Sees bloggers switching to socmed or substack and impoverishing themselves intellectually in the process.

In contrast socmed stuff is declarative, taking up a position to only get opposition.

When silos gonna silo (and Europeans get sanctioned by the USA for making laws to hold silos to account), hypelinks are subversive and the open web is resistance.

The book aims for a cultural movement / ecology of knowledge in spite of the toxic platforms. Because those erode thinking well (title). Innovation now disregards the quality of relationships. (Nice, this chimes with my [[Menselijk en digitaal netwerk zijn gelijksoortig 20200810142551]] and the unfulfilled potential of exploring that congruence). The book proposes to review the mediasystem to make it align with democratic values.

Luca compares two books (his and Ferraris') in how they solve that relative value problem. Luca by proposing dismantling the dominant platforms and replace them with a multitude of others (as the volume of personal data aids its exploitation I presume, spreading it out means having to collect it and collection is costly if users don't actively bring it to you already). Ferraris proposes otoh an active redistribution of the value gained as political project a new 'pragmatic' and modern communism. De Biase proposal seems more achievable imo (in the sense that we're already doing it)

[[Bryan Alexander]] gives an overview of his current socialmedia usage. #blogdit my 2007 overview of stuff vs now and why the changes https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2007/10/the_long_list_o/ [[Long list of my distributed self 20080530120000]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20241206085109/https://www.presidency.ro/ro/media/comunicate-de-presa/comunicat-de-presa1733327193

The Romanian Presidency has released declassified material looking at the social media role in the unexpected presidential election outcome.

https://web.archive.org/web/20241127105840/https://www.wrecka.ge/against-the-dark-forest/

This looks very interesting to read (via [[Stephen Downes]]). Any link w Maggie Appleton's dark forest metaphor use [[The Expanding Dark Forest and Generative AI]]? Seems to settle on [[People Centered Navigation 20060930163901]] in the end?

The lopsided asymmetry here is charring. Imagine putting in time like that, where responses are instantly generated. You'll feel a) that this is worth something because you spent time on this, and we equate such investment in others with depth, but here there's no other b) there will always be a response by generated personas, and you will feel a likely 'social' pressure to respond in kind.

To me blogging is conversation, and the network explosion is its main purpose. This reminds me of my early posting about follow/followers ration on Twitter https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2023/03/conversational-symmetry-redux/ which refs my 2008 post on it. Durnell points to the loss of conversational symmetry on socmed platforms. Pro-actively creating your own conversational symmetry is key here.

Tracy Durnell describes her process to more social filtering, focusing attention on people rather than the news cycle. [[Social netwerk als filter 20060930194648]] and [[Aggregate info to community level 20060930063025]]

Zuckerman mentions the DSA as his single hope, the only surprisal in this piece. Although the DMA is important wrt the silos too, as is the GDPR, it is the DSA that has the transparency reqs, plus actually describes the outside research access Zuckerman sees frustrated as mandatory. Says enforcement is slow however. Yes, at the same time it's not just reactive enforcement. It's about EU market access, pro-active disclosures are mandatory.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231102055201/https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/technology/63752/when-internet-becomes-unknowable-social-media-tools

Ethan Zuckerman on socmed research.

Odd piece equating social media silos, or even Twitter alone, with 'the internet', in a complaint against silos-be-siloing by shutting APIs. As FB always has, this is mostly about X-Twitter. Plus US lawasuits being used by social media billionaires or lawmakers with disinfo as election strategy to frustrate researchers.

The irony of still signing with your Twitter handle a piece about the demise of it. The entire thing in a nutshell. I have stopped mentioning my single remaining Twitter account as contact details on anything. My site, mail and Mastodon in that order I always mention.

This is the cycle that made Twitter. Real time developments, and another was the interaction/access dynamic between politicians and journalists. A very visible sign of that cycle breaking, the utility in a developing crisis/event nullified, is I think a good canary. Because in practice the amount of non-human content, trollfarming on top of the actually low user numbers mean that its heyday reputation was already no longer rightfully worn. I wonder how long the public perception of that cycle existing will lag behind the actuality of it no longer being there.

This seems a false dichotomy. There are more than two ways to do this, more than 'blitzscaling' and 'invitation-based' (which I have come to see as manipulative and a clear sign to stay away as it makes you the means not the goal right from the start of a platform, talking about norm setting). Federation is e.g. very different (and not even uniform in how it's different from both those options: from open to all to starting from a pre-existing small social graph offline). This like above seems to disregard, despite saying building tools is not the same as building community somewhere above, the body of knowledge about stewarding communities / network that exists outside of tech. Vgl [[Invisible hand of networks 20180616115141]]

boyd here stating what has been a core notion of community stewarding since late 90s knowledge management: participation value to members. (e.g. Wenger 1998/9 and 2002)

yes, we call it social media these days, and the focus is on media, not social. Yet [[Menselijk en digitaal netwerk zijn gelijksoortig 20200810142551]], meaning we should design such tools starting from human social dynamics.

This is definitely a feedback loop in play, as already LLMs emulate bland SEO optimised text very well because most of the internet is already full of that crap. It's just a bunch of sites, and mostly other sources that serve as source of K though, is it not? So the feedback loop exposes to more people that they shouldn't see 'the internet' as the source of all truth? And is this feedbackloop not pointing to people simply stopping to take this stuff in (the writing part does not matter when there's no reader for it)? Unless curated, filtered etc by verifiable human actors? Are we about to see personal generative agents that can do lots of pattern hunting for me on my [[Social Distance als ordeningsprincipe 20190612143232]] en [[Social netwerk als filter 20060930194648]]

The toxicity made me leave FB and reduce my LinkedIn and Twitter exposure. Strickler calls remaining nonetheless the bowling alley effect: you don't like bowling but you know you'll meet your group of regular friends there.

I wrote this in 2007, just as FB and Twitter took off, so was thinking not of them but other social tools (social software rather than media). One way #socmed turned toxic is because they started filtering for us?

IPFS + Social Media as a simple implementation.