Things getting banned from the too big to fail platforms like YouTube, other Google products, Twitter, Facebook etc. is nothing new. This is just another victim of many.
That’s why I optimistically want to focus on the good parts of this occassion:
With a free & open source hearted platform like F-Droid, there is always a way to opt out of big corporations, like the ones mentioned above, thus freeing oneself from the chains of their reign, which is just there to to milk us better, by making us stay forever on their platforms, so we can watch their ads virtually forever.
Stop using Twitter, Facebook and Google products. Go free. Free yourself from those chains.
I find it very difficult (impossible) to understand this post.
What is the Flote app?
What makes this app unique?
What is its user base?
Is there any controversy around it?
What are the supposed reasons for the banning from the app store?
The provided links are hardly informative, but written in a manner that is only intelligible to people who are already familiar with the topic.
I did not go into details on purpose, because I don’t care about the app. I just subscribed to the newsletter on my newsletter e-mail address a while ago and got the message about it getting banned.
Flote is basically just some type of inclusive social medium, where everyone’s voice is allowed to be heard. This is what got them banned.
I wanted to show what happens to those, who strongly oppose what is currently the accepted way of thinking in the mainstream.
The point of this post is to make people consider leaving Twitter, Facebook, Google products, etc. due to issues like the ones presented. So, it does not really matter what the details of the app are, except it’s a scam app or whatever, but it’s not. It’s just another app, but it still got banned.
I do not use any social media, i.e. I do not use Flote, either. I just care that normal things get banned on big platforms, where most users hang out.
If I write a letter to a newspaper, the editor decides whether it is published. If I submit a scientific paper to a journal, peer review decides whether it is published. If I get a position teaching the institution confines me to certain guidelines.
All these things are centralising . They keep the ship from foundering on rocks.
If digital media have no centralising forces they will descend into anarchy. I dont think you want that. I think you would always want there to be a little bit of culling at the fringes, but freedom within that.
Its all about how we keep Google et al mainstream and prevent hijacking by minority groups. We have the same problem in politics, minority groups get a disproportionately large voice.
Tradition is a strong centralising force. Tradition is about including our ancestors in democracy today. By giving them a vote we help to keep things balanced.
So how can we build traditions into digital media? That is the solution to your issue. We need to link Google et al into the past. How do we do that?
I like the post, but you seem to have thoroughly confused Mina
Neville
There are about a million different newspapers, where at least 20 to 30 are major ones, so you got the choice. Additionally, newspapers filter by news-worthy stuff. In this case, it’s about anyone’s voice, not about news-worthy stuff. So, this example does not work.
Scientific papers are not there to voice human opinions, but to be correct according to the scientific method. Again, wrong example, which does not apply here.
You decide where you teach. There are hundreds of thousand schools in the world. You can choose the one that fits you best. Therefore, this example neither applies to this case.
That’s a very weird choice of words. Letting people express themselves and their opinions is not about leading a state and putting a people into anarchy, i.e. lawlessness. It’s about everyone’s voice being heard. So, no idea how you get the idea of “anarchy” in this context.
How can Google be “hijacked” by minority groups? Such fear comes close to insane paranoia.
The point I am making is, which already shines through, by providing the reasons why your comparisons do not apply in this situation, that you always have a choice in many different situations.
You can choose your school.
You can choose your hospital.
You can choose your work place.
You can choose where you live.
You always have the choice.
Except in social media and wherever people’s voices are important.
There is only one Twitter.
Only one Facebook.
Only one Amazon.
Only one YouTube.
There is no alternative. If you create creative videos you have to be on YouTube. Period. If you make video content and are not on YouTube, you literally have no job.
If you are a social group, which tries to reach as many people around the world as possible, you have to be on Facebook. There is no way around that, the way it is now. If you are banned from Facebook, you can close your group and seek a different job.
The list goes on and on. Those platforms have no alternative in terms of reaching people. You cannot choose. You are forced to use them. That’s why minority groups’ voices should be protected and heard on those platforms. Because they have no choice but to stay on those platforms.
However, the reason for their power is the sheer amount of users using those platforms every single day. If that would stop, they would lose their power and things would most likely improve.
This is why I recommend people to stop using those platforms, as every user they lose weakens their power. In turn, they should use free platforms, which is inclusive to every voice, not only the ones allowed by the mainstream.
Well said. As we look back at this year, I believe it to be a turning point for free software. Will it be open, or subject to the whims of authoritarians? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yes all that is true, and you said it more clearly.
You cant choose your government - except once evey 4 years at an election , and only in democratic countries. Voting is the centralizing force that modulates governments.
You can sometimes emigrate.
You are advicating we all emigrate, out of google, facebook, etc, into nothing… “Vote with your feet” rarely works when there is nowhere to go. Look around for another solution.
There are no controls over international corporations. It is a problem . It does not just affect free software . How do you break down a monopoly when itmis outside government control?
The Australian government had a go. It took on Google and Facebook over some issues, and they backed down and complied. That is a start and it shows that progress can be made in controlling these things.
The question of censorship, ie controlling extreme outlier opinions, is a separate topic. Having choices of say, schools, allows an individual school to apply some restrictions. If there is only one school, it feels obliged to accept everything. So that is perhaps why Google , Facebook , etc accept nearly everything.
I still say centralising forces are important. We cant have governments or international cooporations going off the deep end. get some voting into the digital media, not voting with your feet, but real choice of candidate. Make digital media traditional. It is because they are revolutionary new movements that they are out of control. If they stay revolutionary they will die out. The institutions that survive for centuries are traditional ones - legal system, universities, church, …
I agree with your problem, not with your solution
Neville
No, I’m advocating to emigrate into more freedom & open source hearted solutions. For example, federated social networks are inherently free, because of how they work on a technical level. There is no one Zuckerberg, who can show us the middle finger. Because, if someone does, you just open your own server and add it to the network. Therefore, the people regain their power in such a situation.
If we get away from extremely centralised solutions, everyone can have a voice. And don’t worry, the mute and block buttons still continue to exist. If you don’t want to hear someone’s rambling, then just mute or block them. But don’t let them be thrown away entirely from the whole platform, as it is the case on Facebook, Twitter, etc. every single day.
I’m not a fan of laws. I’m a fan of “natural” necessities. If you make something “naturally” necessary, you will only need very few laws, because everyone will abide “natural” necessities.
Example: If Facebook loses more and more money every year, because of how they treat people on their platform, they will be eventually naturally forced to change their behaviour. No law needed. We have the power. Just let Facebook go and they will change to survive on the market.
Not sure, how they accept nearly everything. What do you mean?
Not sure, why you need “control” in social media. I am talking about people voicing their opinions, not my choice on the next election. In your statements, you always compare social media to politics and how politicians reign over their people. That’s not how I think. I think in terms of humans communicating. It does not matter, if it’s political or not. It’s about being social with other human beings.
I doubt your credibility, if you seriously mention the church as any kind of non-diabolic force.
Facebook et al can be just as diabolical. I was only talking about survival, not merit. Traditional institutions survive, revoutionary institutions die out.
I am all for new and better, but I dont want to completely discard the past. Tradition is a good safety net, and something to build on rather than starting from scratch.
I dont use Facebook or Twitter. Cant avoid Google.
How about you tell us more about these non corporate, non monopolistoc alternatives? I am sure we would all like to do something to preserve freedom wheter it be speech or software or whaterver.
Neville
Actually, there is one minority group that holds near total power over practically every single aspect of our lives: That’s the very small group of big shareholders and top executives of multinational corporations.
This is just a remark. You might agree with it or not, but further discussion of this question is not one suitable for this forum.
The discussion of FOSS alternatives to major apps or platforms is of course an absolutely legitimate topic.
I agree with that, but I would still refrain from taking too much advice from the ways of how the legal system and church survived. I think, that’s a bad role model. At the same time, it would of course be advisable to conserve the good parts, which still work today.
That’s all nice and well, but I won’t survive that. Nobody knows what will happen in 100 years and it’s not that important, because we have almost no power over it, anyway.
We should make things better while we are alive.
I also don’t understand the argument with the time scale. Medieval society maybe survived for 1000 years and it still died. So what’s the difference between 1000 and 20 years? In this specific context we are talking about, there is no difference between the two.
The thing is maybe the book 1984 is going to come true, as it was George Orwell who wrote that by the year 2050 we will have a new way of speaking called newspeak, which is a totally new way of speaking in English. Meaning new words? Dunno but controlled again by the proprietary systems, that govern the Internet and world at the mo. Forget we fought two world wars for freedom of speech, as that is going if not gone?? If Newspeak is to take over in 2050, then that will mean what I am writing is completely wrong, as it is old. I hope to be pushing up the daisies if this happens.
Dont fight it. I think we will all soon be carrying quantum computers in our phone, and communicating directly like torrent , withot any need for a central social network server. Distributed computing will win.
