1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

What do you make of Jimmy Wales' idea for the future of social media?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Duke of York, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter


    "The reputation of the big social networks seems to sink every week. From Facebook to Twitter, from Snapchat to Instagram, concerns about everything from fake news to cyber-bullying are making many people wonder whether there is a better way to communicate online.

    On this week's Tech Tent, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales tells us why he thinks he has the answer. He has launched a new social network WT.Social, which is ad-free and promises high-quality content."

    Jimmy Wales recognises that social media sites need moderating and that it's a herculean task to do it well, so in his model, as with Wikipedia, it's left to the community to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

    Would it work on here?
    MrRobert44 likes this.
  2. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    It's not needed as moderation is not the Herculean task that it is on Facebook and similar.
  3. WB

    WB Lead commenter

    The problem here is not Social Media it's the people that use Social Media.

    The people will be the same so the end result will be rhe same.

    The anonymous nature of the the internet has given a very clear insight into the minds of a lot of people - I really don't like what I see.
    Laphroig, Jamvic, foxtail3 and 2 others like this.
  4. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    My thought too...

    People are the issue... not the media they use...

    Once upon a time people wrote mean letters to each other... no-one blamed the paper manufacturer or the postman.

    Ah well...
    WB likes this.
  5. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    No, in my opinion.
    It is a corporate responsibility to prevent extremist and illegal material being posted. That is not a responsibility that can be delegated with a shrug to the users (but I'd bet the big platforms would love the idea).

    'The community' is hogwash. Political and commercial organisations pour immense resources into social media manipulation. Millions of false accounts, auto-posting and likes, forced 'trends' and the buying and selling of user data. The idea that all this could be self-regulating is eye-wateringly stupid.

    As for "If you pay a fee you can join straightaway, if not you have to wait for a while and hope that an existing member invites you in." This seems to design-in an ability for nefarious organisations to effectively buy up user accounts and 'invite' lots of false ones.

    The model is presented as a social media platform that people will 'want' because they are fed up with the others. That will gain users, but not necessarily on a massive scale; most social media users have an investment (time, information and networks) in the platforms they use, and are not necessarily unhappy with them enough to switch.

    Also, I wonder at using Wikipedia as the best example business model. Wikipedia articles are no more likely to be true because someone has paid to edit them.
    Jamvic likes this.
  6. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    Intentionally or not, this paraphrases social media platform defense against holding them to account for control of the content on their platforms.

    IMO is is an analogy that does not stand up. The postman does not take letters that someone has written and pin them to other people's front doors, nor does the postal service find as many similar subjects as possible in all the letters in its possession and jam them through letterboxes in case the recipient would like to see and comment on them.

    The postman also is likely to bawlk at graphic pictures of executions or pornography on the front of envelopes and may well report them to the police (i.e. instead of copying and re-posting them a million times and waiting to see if anyone complains!)

    And no postal service as far as I know scans everyone's email for their personal data and sells it to anyone willing to pay.

    Yes some people and organisations are bad, but that should put more responsibility on the media responsible for the distribution of the bad stuff they do.
    Jamvic and Mangleworzle like this.
  7. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    Jamvic likes this.
  8. Jamvic

    Jamvic Star commenter

    Which community member would get final say on which posters or posts were considered wheat or chaff. Not as easy as it sounds.
  9. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    You say the 'analogy doesn't stand up'... obviously it does.

    In the last three years I have received three pieces of mail to my home address that have been abusive. At the same time I have received abusive posts on TES. I have been able to report posts on TES and they have been removed. I tried reporting the abusive mail to the both the post office and the police. Nothing happened.

    I have the choice of 'ignoring' posters on TES... or Twitter etc. If I want to read 'controversial' material on social media I have to subscribe to it... I can unsubscribe... in other words I have control.

    The social media platforms have given us control over the content and material we see... some of us are clearly failing to exercise said control. And then complaining about it... I have never seen a Brexit or Trump ad on facebook for example. I have this thing called 'adblocker' ... and it's wonderful. I exercise my choice.

    Blaming the platform is a weak argument for people unwilling to engage in their own daily experience and expect it drip-fed to them... the attitude of TV viewers from the 1970s/80s.

Share This Page