Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Maybe?

I'm first to argue that, past certain size, social media platforms become de-facto town squares / utilities, and should be treated as such. But, until they are...

> Zuck is selling his customers wholesale, and squandering the resulting cash on asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse. Maybe he should have just stayed with the initial product?

... until they are, it's kind of the core axiom behind capitalism and market economy and social order in most places around the world, that this is his money, and if he wants to be "squandering the resulting cash on" (according to you) "asinine, unthinkably dumb projects like Metaverse", it's his prerogative.



Sure, currently Zuck can do anything he wants with the money he gets from the users in his cage.

We should really open the cage though. Can you imagine being able to call people only on your mobile network, or being able to send e-mail only to people using the same e-mail provider?

Yet we accept only being able to connect with, share photos and posts, message, subscribe to people on the same social platform as you.

If we can define a technical specification for exchanging social data, and enforce that the platforms above certain size implement it, Zuck won't even have the cash to dump on Metaverse. Every platform can then have their own algorithmic feed so you can chose your own echo chamber.

The moat is only good the Zucks of the world. It absolutely sucks for everyone else.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: