Europe Can Build Its Own Social Media

Uh, and what is this we're on right now?
Not to mention Mastodon, Pixelfed federating with Mastodon already, Friendica, Peertube etc...
The powers that be don't like the Fediverse. It's not possible to control and averts direct monetization. They know that if it keeps growing, it keeps reverting the internet back to its initial potential that was stolen from all of us. They don't like that.
Remember when the internet was a good thing and not the gated hell that it is? I do. If you don't, they'd like to keep it that way.
They don't want the general population to know that the internet can be from everybody to everybody. Then people might ask for tax funding to go to server maintenance to be cheaper or even better free to anyone who would want to use it. Like a highway? Yes? Remember when that was one of the analogies for the internet? The building of new highways that would connect us all?
"We can tax fund highways instead of gates and tolls" - they can hear it already. And oh they don't like that. Not one bit.
They want American Social Media, but you know, European. The same but ours.
But if it mimics theirs it will be just as terrible, regardless of where it comes from. Look at how the U.S. is imploding. Does it matter the social media is "theirs"?
"But the E.U. has better regulations and will do a better job."
Do we want the folks that brought us a hit like Troika to be in charge of the entirety of the platforms in which their direct citizens can express themselves? Do we want to give them direct influence to crush dissidence? Have we learn nothing?
Yes, I prefer the E.U to the U.S. The E.U. works better, because the countries that are part of it can actually check its influence. Well, when they can. But the true reason why the E.U. really works is because we have worse things to compare it to. And that is a terrible way to build a future.
We have to imagine a better version of the world if we're to build it. And right now, we are in a sliver of the internet that shows that it is indeed possible. Regardless of odds and issues, it is possible.
- Look, we can only use an open source social network if a deranged billionaire built it. /s
  
  Not into nazime girls, sorry.
- that sounds optomistic, but I hope you're right.

What a terrible article 🤦
Like there is literally a social network build in Europe with millions of users (Mastodon and friends), and the article doesn't even mention it and rather shills for a marginally more popular (mainly in the US and Brazil) one that is made in the US and isn't very decentralized either.
That is fail on so many levels...
- No wonder, just look who the author is:
  Sebastian Vogelsang is Developer of Flashes, a photo- and video-sharing app built on the AT Protocol.
  AT is the blue sky protocol.

Ok? Then where is it? Give me a Facebook that isn't shit. I want to connect to a small group of friends, share photos and stories and not be "profiled".
People i haven't met should not be able to see anything I post, even if we share friends. I'd make it so you'd have to connect with NFC or something before they could see your stuff.
This influencer crap would not exist there. Nor should it anywhere, but that's just my opinion.
- Friendica?
  
  I want my mother to be able to upload videos of the kids and watch videos others have posted. Friendica fails at this first hurdle, it's simply not user friendly enough to do that.
  I have been waiting years for something to come along that can do this well.
- Have you tried mastodon? Pleroma? Misskey? Akkoma? None of them have pointlessly complicated nonsense like "NFC" or whatever but all of them let you share things with a small group of friends and have control over who can see whatever you post. There are people using fedi like that. You may find it difficult to find them, for obvious reasons. But if you and your friends want to start doing it there's nothing stopping you.
- https://movim.eu/ works well for that and can also be used as a WhatsApp replacement (xmpp based). Obviously also made in the EU.
- People i haven’t met should not be able to see anything I post, even if we share friends. I’d make it so you’d have to connect with NFC or something before they could see your stuff.
  Sounds like you want an E2E encrypted group chat rather than social media.
  What you mean by "connect with NFC"? Like meet in person to connect?
  
  Sounds like you want an E2E encrypted group chat rather than social media.
  His idea yes.
  But having a social network where something can be viewed by everyone and something only by your friends is not bad, think something like a federated social that is a middle ground between facebook and patreon, maybe using a public key infrastructure to decide who could see your not public post.

cool story, bro - but WITH WHAT?
I mean, look at the current state of tech we've got in Europe. Look at the Fediverse, which is nice, but about as complex for an average Joe as a fusion reactor. That's ALSO the reason why Bluesky took off and skyrocketed, but Mastodon - despite being there before - is still WAAAAY behind.
Lemmy the same - the user experience and App situation is ABYSMAL. Hell, I'm glad I don't have to fill out a form and FAX it to the server operators to get anything through.
Reason is: Though the FOSS community is great, there's no single design philosophy behind it. Everybody is free to do whatever they please, everything looks a bit different, works a bit different. That's nice for the fans of individual services and programs, but NIGHTMARE FUEL for said average Joe.
And yes, this average Joe is around 80% of the userbase. Plus - and I bet you already did that whilst reading what I wrote - this average Joe is ridiculed by the communities and developers (like all those Gentoo nerds like to joke about everyone who struggles at writing their own drivers for being losers and shouldn't be allowed to operate anything digital for instance). THAT is, by the way, THE reason why Linux NEVER took off, never WILL take off for the end users (despite Microsoft providing THE golden opportunity to switch with their dick move on Win10. But well - average Joe prefers to throw bucks into the bin over switching to Linux. Should make you think why...)
Social Media made in Europe won't work, because we lack those able AND willing to build something modern, "sexy" and easy to use. We've got too many people doubting, too many people holding others back, and others who just want to go through with THEIR idea of something, omitting EVERYTHING around them. And because we ignore the userbase.
- Fuck the "average Joe"... i was there when the internet as a whole turned to shit because it was flooded with "average Joes", hell... i even visited the smoldering ruins of the Usenet after the dreadful hordes of "average Joes" have finished plundering it. The Fediverse doesn't need to grow too large, let it stay a bit under the radar... its better this way.
  
  I think the same, but OP wants a Facebook for Europe, so quite different IMO. Also, yes, let them all pile up there and leave us alone 😇
- Look at the Fediverse, which is nice, but about as complex for an average Joe as a fusion reactor.
  I know that this is repeated over and over, but I really do not see it. Go to join-mastodon.org. Pick a server, it really doesn't matter that much for starters. Start tooting. You'll notice that usernames work like mailadresses, so you can have jon@server1.com and jon@server2.com, but you know how that works from your Mailadress.
  Go join-lemmy.org. Pick a server, maybe the one local to you? Start posting. You'll notice that there might be several communities with similar names, but you know that from Reddit where there are also similar communities or from your local town where there might also be two soccer clubs or so.
  Go to Instagram.com. Register. Get instantly blocked for suspicious activity unless you provide more data. WTF are "reels"? WTF is "Threads"? Those words do not mean anything! What is a "story"? Wasn't there something that you could post pictures?
  The fediverse might have its complexities, but lets be honest: If you can read, you can manage. And if you can't read, you shouldn't be on a text-based social media like Mastodon or Lemmy.
  
  It's all well and nice until someone put a link to a post and that sends you off your instance.
  For example here https://lemmy.zip/post/44734232
- I honestly believe the Fediverse is a good place, exactly because it's slightly less accessible than mainstream stuff. It keeps the absolute scum of the earth out. The internet turned to shit once everyone all of a sudden could access it. It was a fun place to be when you actually had to know your way around a computer. Now the internet essentially is an app on the fucking phone and even the dumbest mouth breather can access it.
- Remember that we used to have social media's in specific countries, but at least the one I know (Hyves) got bought out by the Americans iirc (or the Chinese)
  
  Yes. Germany had StudiVZ. It shows that regulation isn't the only problem. The fragmentation caused by language barriers is a serious problem. Still, regulation is the problem that could be easily addressed. StudiVZ was forced to split its user base; to segregate users under 18. That didn't help.
  Today, AI could help a lot with the language barriers. That's also something the Americans don't think about much. It's no coincidence that DeepL, an early AI company, is European. But with the regulatory headwinds, I'm really pessimistic about their future.
- FOSS can have a single design philosophy. It just needs enough funding and structure. Just look at the Eclipse Foundation (Java).
  If we would have a Fediverse Foundation (perhaps with EU backing) that distributes funds to different Fediverse related organisations and has a board for standardisation we could have a very different outcome.
  
  Sadly the F in foss doesn’t stand for Funding

Not bluesky please
Improve the fedi, a lot
- I mean, I don't like Mastodon much, but I never used Twitter so probably I just don't get it.
  Lemmy seems fine to me. I honestly don't need improvements. ¯(ツ)/¯

For a while I have this idea of basicly giving people free webpages, like some providers are doing but without a private company running things. Like everyone living in the EU has the right to claim a small Wordpress Blog (or something like it, I know Wordpress is shit for some reason) where they can freely express themself. This part with some sort of feed from the pages you subscribe to would be realy cool I think :)
- Back in the late 1990s internet providers gave you an email address and some web space to host your own page.
- Sounds interesting!
- Yes please, setting up your own web page is a nightmare these days that at least seems insanely daunting.

It can but should it? Do we even need "social media"?
- man I sure wonder what we're on right now
  
  I suppose we use different definitions of what the "social media" is.
  
  Something we might not actually need but use anyway?
  
  man I sure wonder what we’re on right now
  A weird form of usenet reenactment?
- Why not? We are currently seeing versions of Facebook or Instagram that are totally warped from what they were back in the day. Where you look at addicting stuff created by professional influencers and ads.
  But remember how the glory days of Facebook were: You and your friends and their friends were there and everybody posted things from their lives. So you could see that your friend Peter was on vacation in Spain. That your cousin got a new puppy. What someone from your old school was doing. People used it for dating and to connect with each others. That guy in your class was also into mountainbiking? Perfect to connect. Local clubs could post about their concerts and you would see it. And you might even see that the guy from work was in a band playing there. It was a great thing, which is now totally ruined by algorithmic feeds, ads, MAGA cultural wars, middle east wars and everything else.
- Dial-up BBS's or GTFO

with blackjack! and hookers!
- With baguettes and french kisses!

Here's an unpopular opinion: This won't happen because the policymakers don't want it to happen. It's fundamentally opposed to what they want. And I'm not spinning some conspiracy tale here. Listen...
The debate involves many ambiguous terms that people like him interpret one way but which actually mean something entirely different. The correct understanding is ultimately the legal definition. That's the one that determines if armed people (ie the police) will come and take away your computer.
the AT Protocol allows users to own their data
To a copyright person, this would mean functioning DRM. It means complete control over what happens to their content, regardless of where and how it is stored. They have the law on their side and the policymakers. Mind that the media is part of the copyright industry and they have outsize influence over public opinion. As far as they are concerned, the problem with Big Tech is that they are not paid enough for their rights.
Many people on Lemmy feel the same way about GDPR. Unfortunately, Lemmy's hive mind is dominated by misconception about GDPR. But it is true that it is far-reaching and would be well served by the same perfect DRM of which copyright people dream.
The ideal European internet is one that has DRM built-in from the bottom so that everyone can exercise their legal rights under copyright law, the GDPR, the data act, and possibly others.
A freewheeling federated network is legally problematic. Even insofar that it is legal, it is fundamentally opposed to what policymakers and much of the public want. Free speech is an American value and emphatically not European.
If you don't believe me, you can look at tax-funded projects like Gaia-X and then imagine what the social media equivalent looks like.
- Here’s an unpopular opinion: This won’t happen because the policymakers don’t want it to happen.
  Which is irrelevant since they cannot ban someone to build one. If you build a social media there is nothing the policy maker can do to stop you. Granted, you need to follow a series of rules, but that's it. And they cannot tighten the rule too much, since they apply to everyone.
  It’s fundamentally opposed to what they want. And I’m not spinning some conspiracy tale here. Listen…
  You are right but for the wrong reason. Currently (and sometimes foolishly) EU don't want to have one big social media like Facebook because in their view it hurts the competition and ultimately it damage the users.
  To a copyright person, this would mean functioning DRM. It means complete control over what happens to their content, regardless of where and how it is stored. They have the law on their side and the policymakers. Mind that the media is part of the copyright industry and they have outsize influence over public opinion. As far as they are concerned, the problem with Big Tech is that they are not paid enough for their rights.
  I would consider that the perfect solution.
  I mean, media companies get absolute control over their content by default (given the protocol) ? Cool that means that also the user get absolute control over his content by default given the protocol. So, maybe we would not be able anymore to pirate a movie but on the other hand a new OpenAi would not be able to freely train their model on our contents and make money with it. (and as benefit, this would set the long discussion about how many money media companies loses to piracy)
  The ideal European internet is one that has DRM built-in from the bottom so that everyone can exercise their legal rights under copyright law, the GDPR, the data act, and possibly others.
  I don't see this as a bad thing. I decide what to publish on a social media and I would like to be able to stop someone from stealing it.
  I think you confuse "published" with "public domain"
  A freewheeling federated network is legally problematic. Even insofar that it is legal, it is fundamentally opposed to what policymakers and much of the public want. Free speech is an American value and emphatically not European.
  No, it is not legally problematic, unless you consider legally problematic to not be able to steal something I published and deal as yours.
  What could be legally problematic is to track the **responsability **of something published (that could be illegal somewhere) because you should unhinging the mindset that the platform must do something, which is accepted everywere else, instead of holding the **author **responsible for what **he **publish.
  
  Thanks for the reply. One thing that baffles me about Lemmy communities is how some contradictory opinions exist side by side without argument. Some praise the open nature of the Fediverse, while others call for the strictest rules on data sharing. Actually, I'm not really sure what the latter group does here.
  I would consider that the perfect solution.
  One problem is that a solution isn't obvious. The copyright industry hasn't succeeded in making a truly effective DRM system. The missing link is lots of surveillance. You need to look for signs of tampering and then arrest people. It's like with a burglary. Locked doors and windows can't even stop an amateur for more than a few seconds. But maybe someone notices a window being broken. The world and Europe are moving in that direction but we are not nearly there.
  An additional technical problem is that European data rights are complicated. You need to determine who has what rights in the data. AI may be very helpful here.
  But the real problem is not technical. The Americans build services that people want to use. European policymakers don't care if anyone wants to use it. The only concern is to make sure that the wrong use can be stopped. It's enshittified by design.
  
  If you build a social media there is nothing the policy maker can do to stop you.
  Tighter moderation and copyright requirements can stop everything. The USA had excempted platforms from holding them responsible to allow broad innovation by everybody. The EU does the opposite and ads more requirements. Nothing that kills an established company but it's deadly for anything but the most serious startups.
  The EU must know about the US excemption. They are not ignorant so they chose to not create competition and to leave that market to the US.

Can it? They haven't yet.

Do it!