←back to thread

461 points GavinAnderegg | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.02s | source
Show context
okhuman ◴[] No.42150575[source]
There will be no great migration like we saw in 2010 with users shifting from Digg to Reddit but, instead, only the slow trickling escapes of users to more dispersed communities.

Here the human condition can flourish in a more localized way, with more participation (less lurking). No more winner takes all.

replies(3): >>42150777 #>>42150791 #>>42150810 #
1. downWidOutaFite ◴[] No.42150810[source]
Social networks' usefulness is proportional to the size of the network so they are naturally winner takes all markets.
replies(1): >>42152365 #
2. volkk ◴[] No.42152365[source]
unless you have two enormous networks where one happens to be libertarian/right leaning and the other is mostly very left. both have huge audiences and can likely thrive just fine on their own. i don't particularly think it's healthy, but it seems like that's just how humans are.
replies(1): >>42153632 #
3. beeflet ◴[] No.42153632[source]
I think that if you have a neutral social network and a politically-charged social network, the neutral one will attract more eyeballs. People like to see ideas challenged and debated. Heavily-moderated and single-sided networks (Mastodon, Truth social, etc.) are simply boring compared to celebrity drama and political clashes on twitter.

What you have in the modern internet is that left-leaning users avoid networks that aren't moderated in their favor (in a conscious attempt to prevent moving the overton window), which leads to right-wing takeover (and eventually death of the social network because there are only right-wingers, see the graveyard of reddit alternatives). This trend would have been reversed a decade ago.

replies(1): >>42190091 #
4. downWidOutaFite ◴[] No.42190091{3}[source]
So Gab, Parler, Truth Social, etc were all left-leaning?