The network effects issue is real, some kind of open graph could potentially be the answer, as upstart social networks start with the disadvantage of having to connect everyone somehow.
That said, I worry about the Myanmar thread: there, The Internet is synonymous with Facebook, and people trust it as an authority. The masses who are unequipped to think critically aren't going to be persuaded to choose something else as long as the platform keeps serving up paid "news" ads and click bait that reinforces their beliefs.
The powerful ability for a platform to target specific humans or allow any one to represent a trustworthy new organisation is problematic. These are interesting places to start too.
They need to be in the self driving car game or the company has maybe a 7-10 year life span. Managing that innovation is necessary, and it's unclear they are optimizing around that.
The other interpretation is this decision is entirely about managing short term to get to an IPO, so investors who have lost faith can cash out. The candidate they are considering fits that bill more closely.
Back then, we had a attorney general who had an interest in dealing with the problem, under an administration that could help deploy the government to deal with bad actors. That's all changed now, and the populous saw the gap, with the ACLU being well equipped to advocate for the same issues.
1). Agree with many that Bluetooth (or another open protocol) is really the way to solve, but the incentives are low to implement universally as the common operating systems in our devices have shifted dramatically in the last 10 years.
2) remember the brief peer-to-peer revolution? Bit torrent, kazaa and emule were (are) pretty effective but have a bad reputation from being used for file piracy.
3). Because of #2, it's been safer for businesses to conform to the SaaS models / garden walls. (Monetizing them is also better understood)
I'd imagine a simple device that broadcasts noise or fake signals would be enough to throw it off. Lots of principles used in speed trap jammers could be used.
I'm surprised most all comments latch onto the political nature of the DNC hack vs. the point Bruce is making: the act demonstrates overt attempts of a foreign government to mess with our election system, and the ___voting portion of the system ___ is what remains vulnerable despite many years of warnings from industry experts. We ignore this at our peril.
This thread. Lesson is to be transparent while going through the process, so there's no surprises. And that all said, never feel guilty if it's ultimately the wrong decision for you. Hiring managers and recruiters are used to having to move on if a candidate falls through.
observe the free falling sales of ereaders in more recent years (any public market research will do), and you'd understand that Amazons ebooks business needs these old devices more and more.
> The problem is that the abstractions for working out what gets attention/promotion on social media favour the lowest common denominator.
IMHO you've identified the root problem. it's simply very easy to optimize a feed around quick interaction signals as a way of surfacing what's important, and still get the quality wrong.
> we are effectively trying to automate an editorial process for deciding what is currently the most important thing in the world, in the meantime separating what is poor content from what is merely controversial, and ranking an image macro against a 10,000 word essay. This is a herculean task, and the methods we are using are manifestly not up to the job.
what's needed IMO are user satisfaction signals. I wonder if social networks could invite users to report content that makes them mad or they find useless. not for abuse, simply to identify what different users like and start understanding what groups of people prefer