Mini: Facebook has a new "competitor" - Wikipedia co-founder announces plan to release a social networking site WT:Social

[rcmaehl]

Source:
Engadget (quote source)
WT.Social

The Next Web (media source)
 

Summary:
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is launching a donation funded social media website called WT:Social

 

Media:

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

Two years ago, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales launched Wikitribune, an online publication meant to combat fake news. Wikitribune never really caught on, so now, Wales is shifting gears. Wikitribune is relaunching as WT:Social, a social-networking site and news sharing platform. He hopes it will be an alternative to Facebook and Twitter. WT:Social will let users share articles. But WT:Social will be funded by donations, rather than advertising. "The business model of social media companies, of pure advertising, is problematic," Wales told Financial Times. "It turns out the huge winner is low-quality content." WT:Social will show the newest links first. It may add an "upvote" button in the future. WT:Social will also support small, niche communities. Those sound wholesome now (think: beekeeping), but we've seen how small communities can fester online. "We will foster an environment where bad actors are removed because it is right, not because it suddenly affects our bottom-line." WT:Social will be free to join, but at the moment, you either have to sign up for a waitlist, donate or invite friends. Just a month old, it already has 50,000 users.

 

My Thoughts:

Well, at least Google can't kill of this one since they don't run it. With Wikipedia's existing psuedo-social network of userpages, I'm sure some of the more active wikipedia users will gladly migrate to it. I may join myself after the fall of Google+ as XDA just really hasn't filled the void of developer communities for non-snapdragon devices.

[Bombastinator]

Facebook without the data mining?!  I’m so in!

 

i disagree with his belief about low quality content.  There is a problem with Facebook with the spiders handing you stuff you already thought was true, which often creates even deeper stupid, but most of all the “targeting”.

[Mbowen]

I think that Wikipeda as a non-invasive hub may be a nice platform to move to. YouTube's new ToS had some... interesting wording in it and makes me rethink my position as a social media and YouTube user. 

This may be a refreshing change of pace. 

[Polyvalent]

An idealistic social media platform sure sounds nice.  But we will see how it will play out, considering Mr. Wales seems to be implying his platform will be deciding what is "right" and who will be allowed within it.  

 

At the very least, it's a sound idea, but I have my concerns.

[Mbowen]

2 minutes ago, Polyvalent said:

An idealistic social media platform sure sounds nice.  But we will see how it will play out, considering Mr. Wales seems to be implying his platform will be deciding what is "right" and who will be allowed within it.  

 

At the very least, it's a sound idea, but I have my concerns.

I agree, I think that a lot of sites and platforms have forgotten that there are always going to be opposing viewpoints and if we wish to continue moving forward as a society, we need to allow for constructive argument instead of censorship. 

That being said, obviously anti-vaxers and neo nazi's are an example of topics that start to get into the "dangerous/harmful" side of things... This is why censorship is a difficult topic. 

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, Polyvalent said:

An idealistic social media platform sure sounds nice.  But we will see how it will play out, considering Mr. Wales seems to be implying his platform will be deciding what is "right" and who will be allowed within it.  

 

At the very least, it's a sound idea, but I have my concerns.

I’m not sure I read the same implications you do the same way.  There’s a difference between idealistic and nonabusive. You’re not incorrect necessarily though.  It depends what he does.  “Right” is a vague word.

 

 Definitely a time will tell thing.

[justpoet]

Sounds retro.  I like it.

I'll probably sign up at some point, since I hate FB and wouldn't be on it if I didn't need to be for my job.

[Polyvalent]

2 minutes ago, Mbowen said:

 if we wish to continue moving forward as a society, we need to allow for constructive argument instead of censorship.
That being said, obviously anti-vaxers and neo nazi's are an example of topics that start to get into the "dangerous/harmful" side of things... This is why censorship is a difficult topic. 

 

I would have to agree with you that it is, at least in my opinion, always more constructive for society to allow free and open discussion as opposed to censorship.  But I also agree that it just isn't that cut and dry when it comes to certain groups of people.

 

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I’m not sure I read the same implications you do the same way.  There’s a difference between idealistic and nonabusive. You’re not incorrect necessarily though.  It depends what he does.

 Definitely a time will tell thing.

 

Fair enough.  I could be misinterpereting his fairly short comments on the platform.  For all we know, if he were allowed to expand on his ideas further, I may end up seeing it differently.  For sure, only time will tell how this will play out.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Polyvalent said:

 

I would have to agree with you that it is, at least in my opinion, always more constructive for society to allow free and open discussion as opposed to censorship.  But I also agree that it just isn't that cut and dry when it comes to certain groups of people.

 

 

Fair enough.  I could be misinterpereting his fairly short comments on the platform.  For all we know, if he were allowed to expand on his ideas further, I may end up seeing it differently.  For sure, only time will tell how this will play out.

The word that worries me is “right”.  I want more expansion on that one.

[poochyena]

why not pillowfort? It also has no ads and is driven by users (paid membership now, but very soon free basic membership with optional premium accounts) https://www.pillowfort.social/FrequentlyAskedQs

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, Mbowen said:

I agree, I think that a lot of sites and platforms have forgotten that there are always going to be opposing viewpoints and if we wish to continue moving forward as a society, we need to allow for constructive argument instead of censorship. 

That being said, obviously anti-vaxers and neo nazi's are an example of topics that start to get into the "dangerous/harmful" side of things... This is why censorship is a difficult topic. 

Constrictive argument and censorship are not direct antonyms IMHO, though they almost are.  It implies that without censorship constructive argument would automatically prevail.  Psychologically manipulative and Abusive argument has gained a major foothold in society, and it’s really powerful and destructive stuff.  It is helped a lot by the presence of censorship though.  Many arguments made that way can not withstand the light of day, so to speak.

[rcmaehl]

3 minutes ago, poochyena said:

why not pillowfort? It also has no ads and is driven by users (paid membership now, but very soon free basic membership with optional premium accounts) https://www.pillowfort.social/FrequentlyAskedQs

pillowwhosit?

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, poochyena said:

why not pillowfort? It also has no ads and is driven by users (paid membership now, but very soon free basic membership with optional premium accounts) https://www.pillowfort.social/FrequentlyAskedQs

Omg who named that?

 

UPDATE: I looked it up.  It’s closed beta atm.  I gotta pay $5 to see what it is.  Assuming the man even knows it exists he may have some different attitudes than that company does about how things should be run.

[TempestCatto]

I may actually join this. And I certainly hope this blows up and gets far more users than anyone thought. I'm sure most people are sick and tired of Facebook's bullshit. Though I suspect more younger folk to take part instead.

[poochyena]

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Omg who named that?

 

UPDATE: I looked it up.  It’s closed beta atm.  I gotta pay $5 to see what it is.  Assuming the man even knows it exists he may have some different attitudes than that company does about how things should be run.

free invites open next week. You can view the active_users community to see what its like. Its kinda a mix of reddit and tumblr in the way the website is laid out. https://www.pillowfort.social/community/Active_Users

or demo user https://www.pillowfort.social/demo_login

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, poochyena said:

free invites open next week. You can view the active_users community to see what its like. Its kinda a mix of reddit and tumblr in the way the website is laid out. https://www.pillowfort.social/community/Active_Users

or demo user https://www.pillowfort.social/demo_login

Hmm.. reddit annoys me.  I mostly go there for questions about things and it’s kinda mean.  Never messed with tumblr. 
 

my biggest issue with Facebook is I wound up kinda accidentally registering as a 108 year old woman and my whole Internet was suddenly full of ads for yoga pants.  I don’t like marketers deciding what I am allowed to see and what to think.

[Unixsystem]

While more social media competition is probably better than none, I still have to question whether the solution to the problems is any site that meets the modern definition of "social media" at all. Maybe I just became an old man at some point, but can anyone name a single benefit that has come from the dominance and reliance on social media in any facet of life? 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Mbowen said:

I agree, I think that a lot of sites and platforms have forgotten that there are always going to be opposing viewpoints and if we wish to continue moving forward as a society, we need to allow for constructive argument instead of censorship. 

That being said, obviously anti-vaxers and neo nazi's are an example of topics that start to get into the "dangerous/harmful" side of things... This is why censorship is a difficult topic. 

Honestly not allowing people to talk about things is almost always bad. Take anti-vaxxers for an example, if you allow people to talk about it then you can give the counter points as to why it is a bad idea rather than simply banning the discussion of it. The problem with banning the discussion of it is that those who are asking questions about it can no longer do so on main stream sites and end up going to sites where all the anti vaxxers are the only 9nes discussing it. 

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Polyvalent said:

An idealistic social media platform sure sounds nice.  But we will see how it will play out, considering Mr. Wales seems to be implying his platform will be deciding what is "right" and who will be allowed within it.  

 

At the very least, it's a sound idea, but I have my concerns.

I'd be fine with it so long as deciding what is "right" is merely a requirement to provide sources for certain types of content.

 

So already, most of legacy media is out the window along with the likes of The Young Turks.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Polyvalent said:

An idealistic social media platform sure sounds nice.  But we will see how it will play out, considering Mr. Wales seems to be implying his platform will be deciding what is "right" and who will be allowed within it.  

I guess it's "right" as long as you have a credible citation just like the rest of the website seems fair enough

 

my concern would be that attracting social media type discussions would change the nature of wikipedia as a whole, probably for the worse.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The problem with banning the discussion of it is that those who are asking questions about it can no longer do so on main stream sites and end up going to sites where all the anti vaxxers are the only ones discussing it. 

Which is good. Fewer people are willing to specifically go and look for groups of outcast weirdos who deny science than to check out a random post on a "reputable" site like Facebook and maybe check out their other posts, heading down the rabbit hole without realizing it. It's important to have free speech on public spaces, but the fewer extra platforms these """ideas""" get the fewer people risk falling for them, which is a net positive in my opinion. The idea that people will read 5 pages of arguments between antivaxxers and people who try to reason with them is wishful thinking at best. Deplatforming works.

 

Now granted, I'm not in favor of private corporations having so much control over what people talk about, but I'm in favor of private websites banning antivaxxers. And fascists, while we're at it.

58 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t like marketers deciding what I am allowed to see and what to think.

That's what social media primarily exists to do - farm your personal data and sell it to advertisers. You can use adblockers to at least get rid of the ads, but your data is still being farmed. Read up on "Cambridge Analytica", Facebook and sites like it are basically active threats to democracy.

[suicidalfranco]

probably already dead and burried

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

Which is good. Fewer people are willing to specifically go and look for groups of outcast weirdos who deny science than to check out a random post on a "reputable" site like Facebook and maybe check out their other posts, heading down the rabbit hole without realizing it. It's important to have free speech on public spaces, but the fewer extra platforms these """ideas""" get the fewer people risk falling for them, which is a net positive in my opinion. The idea that people will read 5 pages of arguments between antivaxxers and people who try to reason with them is wishful thinking at best. Deplatforming works.

 

Now granted, I'm not in favor of private corporations having so much control over what people talk about, but I'm in favor of private websites banning antivaxxers. And fascists, while we're at it.

That's what social media primarily exists to do - farm your personal data and sell it to advertisers. You can use adblockers to at least get rid of the ads, but your data is still being farmed. Read up on "Cambridge Analytica", Facebook and sites like it are basically active threats to democracy.

I strongly disagree. Let's say you know nothing about the fact that mercury is poisonous and you hear others saying it isn't. Then you hear one person arguing their side on why it isn't poisonous while the other simply tries to shutdown the discussion saying its dangerous to talk about. I'm sorry but I would be inclined to listen to the person making an argument rather than the one trying to shutdown discussion. Trying to shutdown discussion of these types of things will only increase radicalism rather than stop it. 

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I strongly disagree. Let's say you know nothing about the fact that mercury is poisonous and you hear others saying it isn't. Then you hear one person arguing their side on why it isn't poisonous while the other simply tries to shutdown the discussion saying its dangerous to talk about. I'm sorry but I would be inclined to listen to the person making an argument rather than the one trying to shutdown discussion. Trying to shutdown discussion of these types of things will only increase radicalism rather than stop it. 

All you need to do to find out whether mercury is poisonous or not is read a wikipedia page. You don't need anyone actively arguing against liars and idiots for that. History has shown that giving these people platforms is how they get a following while deplatforming them has been clearly shown to work in removing them from public perception and ultimately from accredited discourse, making them mostly harmless. We have plenty of good examples of this.

 

If your argument held any water then it would follow that we should make ad campaigns for these people and invite them to talk shows, then invite the other side as though the two arguments were equally valid and worthy of consideration. It's painfully obvious that this would have quite the opposite effect from what you say. When you're arguing for a lie all publicity is good publicity because repetition and social normalization is the only way you're ever going to convince anyone.

 

If only a handful of people can find these discussions online then at worst only a handful of people will fall for it, whereas platforming them means gambling that whoever hears them will take the time to read the counterpoints and responses and what have you while giving them orders of magnitude more outreach and potential followers.

 

Also, if it didn't work or even made it worse, why wouldn't these people be in favor of their own deplatforming or at least indifferent to it? Why would they act so outraged when they get banned from twitter or youtube? They know it works and they're scared of it. Don't fall for their bullshit.

[Teddy07]

I am pessimistic. It will fail like the others