this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
117 points (92.1% liked)
Asklemmy
44781 readers
617 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Centralisation isn't inherently bad. It has many benefits from a technical perspective. Remember that none of these social networks got popular through not offering people what they wanted, and the vast majority of people do not want biased or hate filled sites.
But centralisation does give a lot of power and influence to the few, and so far, they have all been found wanting when it comes to not being evil.
recognizing the pattern of owners/mods abusing power and no one really agreeing what exactly that entails, will always find that decentralization is the way that it has to be.
We tried centralization and doesn't go well. The answer is not to keep trying the same thing.
Well, no. Centralised social media did, and is, doing extremely well by most metrics.
We can build our ivory towers and feel happy and safe within them, but it doesn't change the fact that we're not missed and the above probably like that we're not there pointing out its flaws.
Such as censorship (everywhere). shadowbanning (X), ownership by an egomaniac slyster (X), blue badges (X), and being ganged up on (reddit). i'm ignoring platforms for addicts such as tiktok, youtube, and instagram.
Which matrix are we ignoring in order come to the conclusion legacy social media is doing well? Be specific.
You are right.
At the same time, those platforms are not providing enough value for users to stick around.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that these large social media companies are operating for your benefit.
A strange notion to hold.
if someone chooses to be on a platform and they don't get any benefit from it then they shouldn't be on it.
The platform owner(s) definitely have motivations and/or an agenda. Safe to assume the owner is a stakeholder and therefore is not guaranteed to be hands off forever.
Both of these are besides the point. The question is,
why do people stay on a platform?