I blew 50k and 9 months developing a new social platform that offers something different

submitted by TenPointMatt from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I find going back in history to find things painful on many sites. That's why it's necessary for a good search and diverse navigation options, more than just back one page at a time.

Have you considered sharing this to Vox Day and friends. They've got their own little empire going. Capitalist, right leaning, not-open source, paywall, etc. A paywall is a FAAAR easier way to keep the riffraff and abuses out, helping with your curation. I don't know if their Christian values tolerate gambling or not.

Also, maybe the Tin Foil Hat Podcast might be interested, as they're considering gambling stuff.

I don't gamble, so any time I see it I simply assume it's someone desperate for easy money trying to take it from someone else more desperate for easy winnings. Inherently hustling and untrustworthy. But maybe that's just my outsider impressions.

Here's another feature idea: collective commentary on web pages and/or topics. Gab has their Dissenter. BitChute has their CommentFreely. You could have your suite with a browser addon that would let you know whenever a page you're on has been commented on, or has been linked with comments, or has been meta tagged for key words.

Metatags are key. Steemit has 5, not enough IMO.

Long form sounds good too. Essays for contextual understanding of complex issues is needed more these days, IMO.

IMO, decentralization is the only way we can resist the corproratocracy. Facebook, Reddit, Yelp, Wikipedia only got "ahead" because of the corporate media promoting them, above the rest of the thousands of similar sites. Unless you've got deep state, military, or Jewish connections, you haven't got a chance against them - even if you want to "sell out".

Maybe there's a way to partly federate. Plug in and participate - to a degree.

[–]TenPointMatt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

thanks again for the reply!

i do like many of the ideas you bring up, and will definitely have to add something to the terms and privacy about users retaining image rights. memer's rights are human rights :D

its actually the first im hearing about the collective commentary feature of gab - i will for sure look more into a feature like that!

i think the part-federation makes sense. i think of social medias future being long-talied, rather than fully decentralized. specialization and smaller, more lightweight options with 'localized' interests and such. some common connection infrastructure would certainly help though.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wikipedia censors all sorts of stuff and offers the "official narrative" - as if there's only one. All the others do in their own way too. We need defenses against this. Even if you're not open source and are for profit, you can play a role against the abusive exploitative corporatocracy.

Another thing you might consider doing is simultaneously archiving a snapshot of every image, phrase, post, media, etc. Not only are more archiving options better than fewer, a local archive might speed up service and other performance things (searches, metadata, etc). Most of the archive won't be changed remaining simple and static. But a tool that alerted you to changes, modifications, deletions, etc. THAT would be very valuable for calling out deception, etc.

Maybe not for today or next year, but if you build the architecture today for it one day, maybe it could be a game changer, or just a handy piece of the game.

The problem with common centralized infrastructure is that it's an easy target for trolls or the powers that be. Maybe keep opensource in your back pocket as a desperate measures tool. The difference between capitalist ownership and opensource ownership is integrity - and integrity is something you can't buy, no matter how hard Microsoft is trying. They've bought GitHub and they're infiltrating Linux - but they haven't bought integrity. Eventually all that git is going to squeeze out between their fingers when they tighten their fist.

Integrity is authentic authority, earned through valued expertise - not through the monopoly of violence of illegitimate "authority", the police, the courts, the law, the jails, the military, and the influence of money.

Going opensource would buy you more integrity that you can imagine - especially if you have a great product and/or a great community. Openness need not be limited to code. You could 100% open all your books, transactions, etc. People could see how it comes and goes. They would see the sacrifices and gains. They may be critical and even want some say, but you need only open up as much as you want. A roadmap with goals would help. Not all democracy is good nor bad.