Musings on digital evolution…
A college #social network – for example, the original “The Facebook” – was a group of people, some of them friends. The social network didn’t make any money. People came to it for other forms of value. Other social networks appeared. Themes developed: this site is for pictures, this site is for 140 character “tweets.”
Then it became about making money.
They became a tool for gathering information that could be sold.
They became a place to sell advertising.
They became a way to sell goods and services.
They became the origin point for social change, for societal movements.
They became a way to influence the masses.
They became tools for manipulation, for money, for power.
It got ugly.
User bases started to decline.
“I’m leaving #MySpace.”
“I’m leaving #Facebook.”
“I’m leaving #Twitter.”
New social networks tried to compete.
#Snapchat.
#Vine.
#Periscope.
#Discord.
#TikTok.
Some survived, some died.
People wondered, “Is the #Internet ever going to be a place where good prevails? Or will it always be a place where the ugly and twisted grows and competes with the beautiful and kind?”
#Mastodon instances were born. Like Twitter, but not like Twitter.
When Twitter started to fall apart (too soon, as I write this, to tell its ultimate fate), Mastodon grew quickly.
People said, “This is better. People are nicer here.”
Maybe the Internet is about death and new birth, and not growth.
Maybe social networks don’t get better. Instead, they die, and are replaced by the newly born. Younger and stronger, the replacement versions bring improved characteristics, better traits.
We shall see. This history is still unfolding.