I love this take. When we can get past the breathless danger of social networks (which, to some, spells "opportunity"), we can treat their failure modes for what they are: systems acting as boorish neighbors.
The most scalable defenses against exploitation of social networks will be distributed cultural notions of etiquette, self determination and even hygiene - not instantly-out-of-date regulation or even technological solutions (although a strong cultural take on owning your information landscape will inspire it's own technical opportunities)
I hope my kids will find it kind of gross and embarrassing to be caught up in somebody's disinformation, rather than lending it credibility as enemy action.
> Right now the social networking sites occupy a similar position to CompuServe, Prodigy, or AOL in the mid 90's. At that time each company was trying to figure out how to become a mass-market gateway to the Internet. Looking back now, their early attempts look ridiculous and doomed to failure, for we have seen the Web, and we have tasted of the blogroll and the lolcat and found that they were good.
> But at the time no one knew what it would feel like to have a big global network. We were all waiting for the Information Superhighway to arrive in our TV set, and meanwhile these big sites were trying to design an online experience from the ground up. Thank God we left ourselves the freedom to blunder into the series of fortuitous decisions that gave us the Web.
> My hope is that whatever replaces Facebook and Google+ will look equally inevitable, and that our kids will think we were complete rubes for ever having thrown a sheep or clicked a +1 button. It's just a matter of waiting things out, and leaving ourselves enough freedom to find some interesting, organic, and human ways to bring our social lives online.
This is a really good point and something an over-30 like yours truly would have an easy time missing even as it happened around us (my most meaningful groups are now distributed over WhatsApp, Slack, and good 'ol email). Happen to know any sources quantifying this phenomenon?
> Happen to know any sources quantifying this phenomenon?
Perhaps the best answer you can get here is "no." That's exactly what the privacy advocates would want to hear, yet the phenomenon is very real.
I'm in my mid-30s but almost all of my social networking with younger colleagues/friends is done via ephemeral group chats (Snapchat) and Signal. I keep a business Twitter and personal Facebook like everyone else, but any substantial communication is moved offline to encrypted and less-trackable methods.
The younger crowd figured out how to use the encryption technologies we've been wondering how everyone will adopt all while we've been missing it. Are they perfect implementations? No. But a lot better than what standard communication looked like years ago.
It has nothing on the free spirited forums "we" had 20 years ago. How would random people find out about and get into private, encrypted groups? Not at all. It's not the same thing in any shape or form.
If anything, a generation gave up even wanting to have a public space and a spirit of tolerance, and retreated into purely private rooms, moderated by private tyrants. Ancient Greeks had a word for people who restrict themselves to the private, and aren't interested in public offices and affairs, which today is an insult -- while what it used to describe is viewed as desirable, something people brag about.
Many people gave up, they aren't even part of the discussion anymore. They cannot fathom what is under discussion, because they never had it. It's not that I'm not aware, it's that I weighed it, and found it too light.
> [...] notions of etiquette, self determination and even hygiene [...] will find it kind of gross and embarrassing to be caught up in somebody's disinformation.
The parts I mentioned about why popular ideas discover more potent forms through mutation? Also the title is a self referential joke. Added my comment exactly because it doesn't look like quality at first glance.
Your last paragraph very well expresses the reality of (I’d say) social media - it’s mostly people talking in circles around propaganda someone else has created for profit. How will it look in 50 years if your grandhchild sees you arguing till you’re blue in the face and alienating half of your personal community because of some factoid that isn’t even accurate?
We’re going to look like primitive ape-men. I guess it’s similar to how we look back at drunk driving in 1500 pound steel death traps. Or oppressing blacks simply for being black. But then again those grandkids will probably in turn look dumb for falling into the trap that virtual reality was a valid replacement for actually living your life.
The most scalable defenses against exploitation of social networks will be distributed cultural notions of etiquette, self determination and even hygiene - not instantly-out-of-date regulation or even technological solutions (although a strong cultural take on owning your information landscape will inspire it's own technical opportunities)
I hope my kids will find it kind of gross and embarrassing to be caught up in somebody's disinformation, rather than lending it credibility as enemy action.