My own pet idea is to let users have full control over their feed algorithm with a scripting language or something plus a generic Publish Subscribe infrastructure
I think about that concept a lot. I’ve been trying to avoid looking at it during this because it would require designing and implementing a programming language and that seems harder than just doing this without it.
But one day I really want to make a social network that just consists of remote reactive permissioned datatypes. Like, a social online programming shell/IDE + stuff for visualizing shared data. It would all just be typed data and the very thin, easily inspectable views people make for working it.
It might end up giving rise to some very janky systems, but it would be extremely fun and probably extremely useful to anyone who frequently needs to make online ad-hoc stuff.
Just to get things rolling—what business model do you see for it?
Free to read articles (hm unless… [1]). A monthly fee plus excess expenses (we’ll measure the computational expenditures of each user to reduce the DDOS attack surface. Not sure how common practice that is, but it seems like an important art to develop. If we’re ever going to make a social online shell it’s going to need to be able to measure computational expendature very precisely and always to attribute it to the one who’s really to blame for it.) once a user wants to write, or to run queries that might be a little bit expensive.
If there will be obligations to investors, the obligations need to have an expiration date. It doesn’t have to come soon, but there has to be a constitutional commitment for the organization to, in the long-term, answer only to the mission of stewarding a productive global discourse.
[1]: If we’re taking a fee at all, it might make sense to support a thing where… some content is only made easily accessible to people who are paying a commons funding fee, which is kind of like subscribing to a platform like netflix only there is no central group deciding what your subscription fee is funding (unless there should be??), instead, you decide that. You’re committed to funding the media ecosystem, but which parts you fund is up to you. This has a lot of benefits over traditional media funding models. It is more about gratitude than appeal. You pay after reading, not before.
By default, it would just look at who you upvoted/applauded over the course of a month, and allocate your CFF in proportion to that, but you really ought to be able to divide it however you want.
Some amount of policing would be required to prevent the normalization of any process where a donee just paypals the cff they’re allocated back to the users, which could be used by abusive users to access commons content without contributing anything to legitimate projects. (The more I think about this the less sure I am that there’s any way to stop it. A ring of presences that post one (computer generated) haiku a month and send their income to exactly one user as long as they’re receiving some. Outwardly following all the rules but inwardly complete crooked.)
Multiple payment levels of CFF might exist, with more and more exclusive content, although I’m not sure how elegantly that would ever work.
I think about that concept a lot. I’ve been trying to avoid looking at it during this because it would require designing and implementing a programming language and that seems harder than just doing this without it.
But one day I really want to make a social network that just consists of remote reactive permissioned datatypes. Like, a social online programming shell/IDE + stuff for visualizing shared data. It would all just be typed data and the very thin, easily inspectable views people make for working it.
It might end up giving rise to some very janky systems, but it would be extremely fun and probably extremely useful to anyone who frequently needs to make online ad-hoc stuff.
Free to read articles (hm unless… [1]). A monthly fee plus excess expenses (we’ll measure the computational expenditures of each user to reduce the DDOS attack surface. Not sure how common practice that is, but it seems like an important art to develop. If we’re ever going to make a social online shell it’s going to need to be able to measure computational expendature very precisely and always to attribute it to the one who’s really to blame for it.) once a user wants to write, or to run queries that might be a little bit expensive.
If there will be obligations to investors, the obligations need to have an expiration date. It doesn’t have to come soon, but there has to be a constitutional commitment for the organization to, in the long-term, answer only to the mission of stewarding a productive global discourse.
A fairly modular UI consisting of a way of looking at your presences, browsing webs, and opening views over your saved queries, I think
[1]: If we’re taking a fee at all, it might make sense to support a thing where… some content is only made easily accessible to people who are paying a commons funding fee, which is kind of like subscribing to a platform like netflix only there is no central group deciding what your subscription fee is funding (unless there should be??), instead, you decide that. You’re committed to funding the media ecosystem, but which parts you fund is up to you. This has a lot of benefits over traditional media funding models. It is more about gratitude than appeal. You pay after reading, not before.
By default, it would just look at who you upvoted/applauded over the course of a month, and allocate your CFF in proportion to that, but you really ought to be able to divide it however you want.
Some amount of policing would be required to prevent the normalization of any process where a donee just paypals the cff they’re allocated back to the users, which could be used by abusive users to access commons content without contributing anything to legitimate projects. (The more I think about this the less sure I am that there’s any way to stop it. A ring of presences that post one (computer generated) haiku a month and send their income to exactly one user as long as they’re receiving some. Outwardly following all the rules but inwardly complete crooked.)
Multiple payment levels of CFF might exist, with more and more exclusive content, although I’m not sure how elegantly that would ever work.