zlacker

Network effects, and the existing services being "good enough"

>>Analem+(OP)
Yeah basically that. People don't want extensible services or open platforms. They don't want full control over their data. They don't want 100% privacy. These are all niche things that like less than 1% of people want. Most people just want a thing that does one basic job and does it good enough.

>>Analem+(OP)
"Network effects" on the WWW are artificial. We need to update our laws so that neither users nor developers can be punished for using any non-disruptive browsing device. A browsing device is anything that consumes data and shows it to users later.

Little guys like App.net won't stand much of a chance against the behemoths until the U.S. legalizes competition against the tech cartels.

Once that happens, sites like App.net and Twitter can compete on an even footing, and consumers will be free to choose services based on merit rather than lock-in.

>>Analem+(OP)
It's rare to see a service as entrenched as Twitter get displaced unless it's just not Good Enough in some capacity.

It's possible that if Twitter crumples under the weight of the abuse, if it becomes nothing but a dead sea of trolls, that we'll see a successful replacement.

Until then, muddle on!

>>sdegut+32
I can see how you would takeaway that perspective, but App.net never guaranteed what you laid out. It was proprietary just like Twitter. If App.net ever got mainstream traction, we have no idea if they would have held to those principles, and history tells they would not have. The free, open, federated network's time has still not come. Most people are still coming to grips with the existence of these social networks; they have not yet jumped to the conclusion that makes App.net make sense. I believe it will happen.