Prompted by “Zuckerberg To Give Away 99% of His Facebook Stock”: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/12/02/0115257/zuckerberg-to-give-away-99-of-his-facebook-stock
The Facebook stock currently held by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan is worth roughly $45 billion. Today, the couple posted a letter addressed to their newborn daughter outlining plans to give away 99% of that stock so their daughter can “live in a better world.”
Actually prompted during the relevant news report last night, I sense Mr. Zuckerberg is wisely seeking a graceful exit from the abhorrent monstrosity that Facebook has become.
That includes the severe warning being sadly predictably ignored by too many people content with living out their pathetic roles as sheeple at terrible societal risk.
Social networking is obviously an important (if not critical) part of the Internet. Also obvious is the need to secure enough resources to run a social network.
Offhand, I find four possible revenue streams to satisfy that need; advertising, user data selling (human data cattle), subscription, and merchandise.
Facebook opted for the first two (and maybe the fourth beyond my care), but the devilish nature of that option comes from intentionally crippling post/share exposure (formally called Edge Rank) to supposedly generate ad revenue.
In short, Facebook stupidly crippled their service to make money.
Facebook received a mass migration from MySpace, so it would at least seem foolish to cripple the social networking part of a social network upon considering that migration can flow away from Facebook and towards preferably a healthy social networking flow — something I’ll be doing at least with my Playful Skull’s Imaginareum fan page.
Facebook mandates social expression dominance via their censorship algorithm.
If the sheeple and their idiotically corrupt shepherds win the day (or days of many, if not all, human generations), the entire Internet (actually the part that’s conveniently accessible by sheeple, and the part necessary to inform the masses for protection from an abusive oligarchy, but never the dark and deep parts) will conform to such nonsense to “protect the children” and to automatically filter out ‘unwanted noise’.
In some cases, that mentality already exists elsewhere beyond Facebook.
I forget the term for it, but there’s a form of blacklisting that upon you being trapped by it, your posts (comments, etc.) seem to you as being posted, but nobody else actually sees it, so you’re left thinking nobody cares. Pure evil best describes that idiotic and ironically abusive methodology to address an abusive poster, and that’s only one example of hideous possibilities.
Three qualities are mutually critical in any relationship — love, trust, and respect.
If any of those three qualities diminishes enough or breaks, then the healthy relationship ends.
Thuggery and abusive reasoning are logically the main threats against any healthy relationship.
Censorship is a form of informational thuggery combined with reason abuse.
Social networking (and basically humanity in general) is all about relationships, so censorship is obviously evil.
Control over content filtration can only righteously be left in the hands of the users. Coercive collectivism to the contrary be finally damned in favor of a maximally responsible individualism necessary for a healthy and natural collectivism.
Any actually harmful (i.e. legitimately illegal) posting activity (e.g. results from assault, child exploitation, etc.) results in prosecution and oligarchical removal of that content — and real imprisonment means virtual extension imprisonment (relevant user profiles “behind bars”).
Otherwise, part of the social experience is adapting to remaining problematic content, so society can healthily exercise sociality to strengthen at least the humanity relationships. For example, you can simply politely ask an abusive poster to chill out (because they’re excessively dominating your feed) or be removed from your social circles, because that’s what’s supposed to naturally happen upon incompatibility.
So far, the aforementioned adaptation in the form of the most popular social network is an apathetically and lazily accepted censorship algorithm. It’s like going to the gym and having automatic machines carry you through your “workout”.
If I had my way (and maybe someday I will with your help), I would carefully build a new social network (actually a fully open social network protocol exemplified by my social network).
It would be very simple to use (e.g. no cluttered user interface thanks in part to no advertising and only presenting just necessary features with a simple customize button to open up the universe of modular expanding possibilities, etc.), so anyone (including the cerebrally challenged too often dismissed by elitist academics) can intuitively jump right in.
It would be private, so no advertising (repeated for emphasis) and no user could become data cattle in the personal front.
Most people are apparently on Facebook to connect with family and friends (a connection of their private residences). There’s no reason to commercialize that personal experience, just like there’s no reason to see ads all over your home (e.g. imagine taking a leak in your home bathroom, while forcibly being exposed to advertising on your walls).
I would create a commercial experience separate from the personal one, so users can choose to explore and interact with commercial interests (businesses obviously require social networking too). Your online extension of yourself would be split into “fronts” that you fully control (e.g. personal and professional separation, family and friends separation, different groups of friends, romantic partner(s), acquaintances, etc.), so the photo of a drunken collegiate you running around the party with your pants at your ankles (or such) would be exposed precisely to the people you want seeing it.
Security would be maximized, but there can be no 100% guarantee, so your care would be needed towards responsible content exposure. Even your home can be broken into, and the same principle (or lack thereof) applies online.
If you want your data recorded for marketing purposes, then fine (opt-in only), but you would have full access to that data totality (because it’s a key part of your life — so your rights — that may fall in untrustworthy hands against you and/or yours), and you would be able to opt out (in part or whole) at anytime.
Because everyone has equal rights, there would be only one revenue stream on the personal front.
Subscription would be that stream, but there must be a hard limit never exceeding $1 monthly, because even the poorest Internet-accessing person must be able to afford it.
Assuming the information technology and administrative needs can be satisfied (at least my gut says they can), my social network would never exceed $1 yearly.
If 100,000,000 people use my social network, that’s $100,000,000 in annual revenue (minus minor bank processing fees). Obviously my number of users corresponds to the size of the information technology needs, and technology naturally becomes cheaper over time for the same ability, so there’s never a need for anything more resource-wise.
Instead of the sadly traditionally overworked coders slapping bulky frameworks together and hastily (if not desperately) massaging them to meet an unhealthy deadline to minimize financial risk (or such), my social networking protocol would be meticulously crafted over the course of years (if not necessarily generations) by only the most talented coders (including those without ego problems).
The code would be fully modular with a core module containing only the code needed for literally every social networking session. This allows for best adaptation through upgrades and extensions over the many generations intended to use this code with minimal interference against core functionality.
All Sines is my professional front (an eternally private one avoiding the terrible conflict of interest between investors/shareholders and your satisfaction, if my actions and wishes are honored), so rewarding yours truly for my work via the many convenient options raises the chances of seeing this proposed social network protocol putting responsible individualism above all else to fruition.
Because optimal liberty (requiring maximum responsible flexibility for the same reason an athlete requires it to stay loose for prime performance and inclusively adaptation) is my primary reason for building this protocol, this effort would be placed within my Liberty Shield project.
Then Mr. Zuckerberg’s daughter (and the rest of humanity) could indeed live in a better world maximally without thuggery and reason abuse.
It would be a sensible place where people can freely socialize without questionable oligarchical interference, because ensuring that socializing remains fully open (limited only against the demonstration, so not merely ironically risky risk, of scientifically conclusively defined harm) is logically a primary role for any good oligarchy — one unafraid of fully honest public opinion towards them, because they truly put public health above any pitifully hideously childish absence of leadership perhaps buried in conflicts of interest.