Eileen Brown ☑️Apr 17, 2017

I wrote about Mastodon the other day. Here's the piece I wrote on ZDNet :
http://www.zdnet.com/article/is-mastodon-the-new-social-media-star-or-imploding-black-hole/

I'm impressed with its growth and stability so far. I'll be watching closely as brands try to work out how to monetize this new audience

Show threadDoc Edward Morbius ❌​Apr 18, 2017

@eileenb As @woozle noted, when epistemic (media) systems gain significance, the attract attention:

"Because of a high percentage of the population being present, there is now substantial power to be had by influencing the discussions that take place."

Or more accurately: as there are /returns/ to influencing an audience, those influencers will appear: direct & brand marketing, propagandists, polemicists.

So yes, the brands ... will come, like it or not.

https://redd.it/5wg0hp

Show threadDoc Edward Morbius ❌​Apr 18, 2017

@woozle @eileenb I see a fairly common progression of interests within a new media channel. Not necessarily in the following order, but close:

1. Technicians -- "shop talk"
2. Artistics and creatives, avant garde.
3. Organisations for internal use: business, government, academia, religion, etc.
4. External comms, management, monitoring, discussion.
5. Direct marketing.
6. Mass entertainment.
7. Mass marketing.
8. Propaganda and polemicists.

Merely changing platforms changes nothing.

Show threadwillApr 18, 2017
@dredmorbius @woozle @eileenb unless the medium itself has functions which combat or repel certain elements. For example the avant garde can't stand Nazis. And an instance full of brands may be regarded as spam. Corporations have very little say in open-source spaces.
Show threadDoc Edward Morbius ❌​Apr 18, 2017

@will Sure, but it also depends on those elements' capacities to change the rules themselves.

Bob Dylan: "Money doesn't shout, it swears."

Informational activities which are subsidised by, or reward, financial interests, or political interests, have a capacity to dominate pretty much anything else. Epistemic systems whose incentivisation is /anything but/ seeking deeper truth ... will return that, and /not/ truth.

RAW: Celine's 2nd law.

@woozle @eileenb

Show threadDoc Edward Morbius ❌​Apr 18, 2017

@will Wilson wrote "Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation."

That's only half right.

You also get inaccurate communication where you reward anything /other/ than accurate, informational comms.

* "Publish or perish."
* Social status
* "Honest signalling" (honest or otherwise)
* #brands

Etc.

You might be able to scare off brands be creating a space that's not brand-friendly. Say, YouTube. Or 4chan or /b/.

@eileenb @woozle

Show threadwillApr 18, 2017
@dredmorbius @eileenb @woozle exactly. masto.social is explicitly anti-Nazi and I plan to either ban instances that host such content or at least block/report users who do. Scream "safe space" all ya want, this is my living room not my front porch, I'll filter out what I damn well please.
Show threadWoozle HypertwinApr 18, 2017

@will @dredmorbius @eileenb For what it's worth, people arguing against "safe space" and "trigger warnings" are not being honest; they'll demand their own forms of safe space and trigger warning, but call them something different.

Removing "controversial" books from libraries, for example, or demanding various forms of warning (e.g. "parental advisory") on CDs and games.

Everyone needs safe space, but some of us have to fight for it. :-/

Show threadDoc Edward Morbius ❌​

@woozle Though yes, most those on the AR tend to play with two (or more) sets of game rules.

@will @eileenb

Apr 18, 2017 at 1:20pmWeb
Show threadWoozle HypertwinApr 18, 2017
@dredmorbius @will @eileenb "AR"? I feel like this is something obvious, but can't think of it.