The Scourge of the Internet

No I am not writing about the fear and hate mongering taking over the Internet although they are the greatest evils of the Internet. And I am not taking about corporate social media with all it’s evils of turning the customer into the product, at least it can facilitate communication and community and even activism. I am talking about something much subtler and seemingly innocuous.

The Scourge of the Internet are so-called influencers and content creators.

When I think of influencers, The Kardashians are the first thing that come to mind, people famous for being famous. Influencers online are about being famous, and being charismatic or outrageous seems to be the way to go. But influencers are not really out to influence anyone, they are just looking for followers that can be monetized.

As for content providers, the word content says it. They are not about providing real information or knowledge, it’s just about creating something to stick in-between the advertising. That is why when you go researching online you keep finding multiple websites with exactly the same information, word for word (usually stolen from Wikipedia), Content providers are just sticking content they steal in-between the advertising. Again all for hits and advertising revenue.

These things may seem innocuous but they clutter up the Internet with meaningless pap making finding real information increasing more difficult, if not close to impossible. And AI is just going to make everything worse as the LLMs behind it feed on this mountain of garbage for the ultimate GIGO effect.

Can we have our old Internet back please – a place for information, communication and community.

The stages of corporate social media

Corporate social media essentially goes through three stages.

The first is new, free and wonderful, lots of functionality, user friendly and free, or at least pretending to be free. It’s purpose is to build a customer/product base (as the customer is the product).

The second stage is monetization. The purpose is to make money so once the free loss leader period is over measures to create revenue are introduced. These are usually things the users can live with and are introduced along with measures to make the customer dependent on the product.

Once that is achieved we move into stage three, equivalent to the final stage of capitalism. We move from earning a fair profit to profit maximization with no regard for the user, the assumption being that by this time the user is convinced their very existence is dependent on the product, also known as the Facebook effect.

With the introduction of Brand X, EvilElon is clearly telling us he is moving Twitter into Stage Three as capitalism moves into it’s final stage.

Should We Bring Back The Lord’s Day Act

No I am not going all religious on you This would be more of a Day for Humanity, a day that would not belong to the billionaires and millionaires but to the common people and the community.

This would be a day where all profit making activities would be banned except for activities necessary for essential public utilities and community and social services. Large scale profit making entertainment (including sports) would be banned except for local community based activities.

Perhaps most importantly all social media would shut down for the day and being constantly plugged into devices would be prohibited. Disable texting too and make people actually talk to each other

This would be a day for families of all kinds and the community to come together as people, not just as customers (or contacts), a day when our interactions with each other would not be transactional, a day that would proudly not contribute to the so called economy or the GDP or GNP.

A Day for Humanity, once a week.

Why Mastodon

So why did I open a Mastodon account and why do I think Mastodon can replace Twitter.

I started looking for alternatives to Twitter soon after Elon Musk purchased it and sent it to hell in a hand basket.

Of course, Twitter’s problems started much earlier than that. As soon as Twitter realized that as a business it had to monetize it’s product an emphasis on profitability took over and it ceased to be a primarily community space. At that point many of us wished there was some sort of co-operative community based alternative. Many of us did not realize that one did exist, in the form of Mastodon, until we started looking harder after Elon Musk purchased Twitter as his personal vanity project.

Of course the purchase of Twitter by the world’s richest person could have been a positive thing, The new owner could afford to subsidize it as a project for the common good. But instead he decided to use if for self promotion and to pursue his own perverted concept of free speech, turning it into a haven for disinformation, conspiracy theories, the spewing of hatred and a platform for right wing extremists and white supremacists.

This has forced many from minority and vulnerable communities to leave the hatred for their own self-preservation. Those of us more privileged were able to use our ability to filter what we see to protect ourselves. The reason we remain is that so far no alternative has the audience reach that Twitter does. But many of us are looking at Mastodon as that potential alternative and replacement for Twitter.

Can Twitter be saved. Perhaps, but it’s business model means profit will always be put before community. Could an angel investor with deep pockets subsidize it for the common good. Perhaps, but there are very few people in that position and that would leave the Twitter community beholden to that person.

Can Mastodon realistically replace Twitter. The beauty of Mastodon is in it’s co-operative federated structure and volunteer moderation teams. What Mastodon would need to replace Twitter is a huge increase in server and bandwidth capacity. But it does not need a single angel investor. It could do that with thousands of individuals, organizations, and even corporations willing to provide for the cost of the server and bandwidth capacity necessary, in exchange for the goodwill that would create. As to the increase in moderation capacity needed, the strength of Mastodon is that it is scale-able, as it’s user base increases so does its potential volunteer base. So, yes, I do believe Mastodon can eventually replace Twitter.

The other benefit of Mastodon is that it will not attract the hateful elements that Twitter does. For example, these are the rules for the server I am on.

Some ground rules. These are set and enforced by the mstdn.ca moderators.

1.  No toxic and hateful speech.
2.  No incitement of violence and no promotion of misleading or violent ideologies.
3.  No harassment, dogpiling, or unwanted advances.
4.  No doxxing of other users.
5.  No content illegal in Canada or copyrighted content that you don't own rights to.
6.  Sexually explicit or violent media must be marked appropriately.
7.  No spamming. Excessive posting, boosting, advertising or mass-marketing posts will be   actioned accordingly and based on intent.
8. Be yourself. Accounts intended to impersonate or parody are not permitted, and those found to be directly misrepresenting themselves as another person or entity will be actioned accordingly.
9. Agree to the Terms of Service and Code of Conduct.

Put more briefly, this simply requires that users not be assholes and that they act like decent human beings while using Mastodon. However, this will keep the “anti-woke/anti-PC” crowd away as they see human decency as an affront to their right to free speech and would not want to be associated with such a “woke” service and will likely prefer “TruthSocial” anyway.

For now I will remain on Twitter, taking advantage of the greater reach it currently provides. As for Mastodon, I will likely be easing myself into participation there as I figure things out.

My Mastodon user name is @the5thColumnist@mstdn.ca and my Mastodon main page is located at https://mstdn.ca/@the5thColumnist

You can learn more about Mastodon here https://joinmastodon.org/

To join mstdn.ca go here Sign up - Mastodon Canada (mstdn.ca)

A Tale of Two Twitters

It is the best of the Internet, it is the worst of the Internet, it is the purveyor of wisdom, it is the purveyor of disinformation, it is the home of knowledge, it is the home of wilful ignorance.

Beyond the literary allusion (words inspired by Charles Dickens) there do indeed seem to be two Twitters. 

One can be a place of enlightenment where people share information, opinions and even wisdom and rationally debate the issues of the day.

The other can be a place where people spout conspiracy theories, lies, hate, and even threats, without any personal accountability under the cloak of anonymity.

What is the solution. Some would have us eliminate the second Twitter in the name of civility. Others would argue that Twitter should be a place of absolute free speech without any required personal responsibility.

I would suggest a solution that allows the users to choose which Twitter they want to be part of with a few simple changes that otherwise allows Twitter to continue as it is.

The first thing is to open up Verified Accounts to anyone who wishes to be verified rather than allowing verification only for VIPs and so-called influencers. The second would be to then allow Verified Users, if they wish, to restrict who can see their Tweets and whose Tweets they can see to Verified Users only.

Let people choose the Twitter they want to be part of.