My Social Media Concept

[GrassyTrams]

Kia ora, I'm a New Zealander. I have been observing for a while both the yesterweb movement and the rise of political issues in my country. I find that the internet is making people turn against each other instead of turning against those creating the actual problems, or just simply talking it out and coming to a compromise. I especially see less and less social interactions.

I also believe that the Internet can be a powerful tool where we can connect many groups together to create a more powerful community, so what I am trying to conceptualise, is a social media where only a singular country can sign up, which is also managed by a government-funded organisation. I believe that this would be greatly beneficial to the country as people become more united, more social, more organised.

I think spam, bots, and aggressive/exploitive advertising/marketing campaigns would essentially no longer exist because registering is complicated, and impossible for foreigners. And because the lack of these existing, far less division would occur, and more genuine interactions with people you have a higher likeliness of meeting in real life, which creates a better connection.

The sign up process can be done for my country New Zealand through an already existing service called "Real Me" which is a New Zealand Government service that allows the identity of people to be confirmed, but in this case, its just to make sure they are actually from the country, doesn't really need any information but to just make sure they do have an account.

Feel free to discuss, I'm happy to answer any questions, generally discuss, or fix something that may be a flaw in my idea.

[mrwillhorlen]

a social media where only a singular country can sign up, which is also managed by a government-funded organisation. I believe that this would be greatly beneficial to the country as people become more united, more social, more organised.

lost it right there, if you were to create a venue in which the government has an upper hand in, it will instead ease up their ability to control the masses, this won't end well
my only solution is to drop both social media and politics completely, and start deemphasizing the role of state in our daily lives

[GrassyTrams]

a social media where only a singular country can sign up, which is also managed by a government-funded organisation. I believe that this would be greatly beneficial to the country as people become more united, more social, more organised.

lost it right there, if you were to create a venue in which the government has an upper hand in, it will instead ease up their ability to control the masses, this won't end well
my only solution is to drop both social media and politics completely, and start deemphasizing the role of state in our daily lives

I respectfully disagree, as long as the government isnt doing a Turkey moment or a Russia moment, and is a properly functioning democracy like my country New Zealand, or like Denmark, then theres really nothing to worry about. But I sure wouldnt trust the UK or USA. Social Media is a unique tool to connect a country closer together and i think thats something to be engaged in and try it out. And I'm obviously taking this from my perspective which is highly biased towards the politics of New Zealand, which is a lot different to many other countries.

[Starfia]

GrassyTrams – kia ora; lovely to meet someone here from New Zealand.

Thinking about successful and responsible social network designs is an enjoyable and complicated subject, and this is certainly and appropriate year to think about it. While I can't predict how yours would turn out, I would say it has pros and cons.

Thinking of ways to avoid bots, exploitation of users and excessive ads are good goals for a social network. You suggest a government-funded network would be effective in mitigating that, and perhaps that's possible.

I think at least one or two nations have attempted something like what you're describing. Collective national sentiments and leaderships vary so widely that, if every nation were to independently attempt what you're imagining, the success and values emphasized across implementations would vary similarly. You've suggested you would agree with that simply by mentioning that you'd trust one specific nation's government and not another's.

That easily-imaginable range of varied results illustrates the diversity of viewpoints around the world, and I've always thought that worldwide diversity of viewpoints is one of the most valuable things about the Internet. So, I think the major downside of your concept is not just the willingness to sacrifice that value within that national network, but the active rejection of it. In other words, when you say you see the Internet as "a powerful tool where we can connect many groups together," you mean it can be a tool to connect groups within a nation and to isolate or shield them from groups outside it. You and I could not have this interaction there, for example, so along that axis, it's already one point versus zero in favour of the Yesterweb forum.

I'm curious to ask about your situation specifically. You express trust in your government and believe your arrangement would be better fit to achieve the goal of helping "people become more united, more social, more organised" within your country. Do you feel the residents of New Zealand are insufficiently united?

[GrassyTrams]

GrassyTrams – kia ora; lovely to meet someone here from New Zealand.

Thinking about successful and responsible social network designs is an enjoyable and complicated subject, and this is certainly and appropriate year to think about it. While I can't predict how yours would turn out, I would say it has pros and cons.

Thinking of ways to avoid bots, exploitation of users and excessive ads are good goals for a social network. You suggest a government-funded network would be effective in mitigating that, and perhaps that's possible.

I think at least one or two nations have attempted something like what you're describing. Collective national sentiments and leaderships vary so widely that, if every nation were to independently attempt what you're imagining, the success and values emphasized across implementations would vary similarly. You've suggested you would agree with that simply by mentioning that you'd trust one specific nation's government and not another's.

That easily-imaginable range of varied results illustrates the diversity of viewpoints around the world, and I've always thought that worldwide diversity of viewpoints is one of the most valuable things about the Internet. So, I think the major downside of your concept is not just the willingness to sacrifice that value within that national network, but the active rejection of it. In other words, when you say you see the Internet as "a powerful tool where we can connect many groups together," you mean it can be a tool to connect groups within a nation and to isolate or shield them from groups outside it. You and I could not have this interaction there, for example, so along that axis, it's already one point versus zero in favour of the Yesterweb forum.

I'm curious to ask about your situation specifically. You express trust in your government and believe your arrangement would be better fit to achieve the goal of helping "people become more united, more social, more organised" within your country. Do you feel the residents of New Zealand are insufficiently united?

The way i see it, and how many see it here, is that we society is very disconnected. the only way i see this being improved if there was a social media where only our society can interact in it, which will significantly improve everything and change our society to be better united. Im not saying that New Zealanders have to ditch all other social media for this one, but to use it as a tool with communicating with other people from the same place and organise and do things and socialise.

[madness]

I respectfully disagree, as long as the government isnt doing a Turkey moment or a Russia moment, and is a properly functioning democracy like my country New Zealand, or like Denmark, then theres really nothing to worry about. But I sure wouldnt trust the UK or USA. Social Media is a unique tool to connect a country closer together and i think thats something to be engaged in and try it out. And I'm obviously taking this from my perspective which is highly biased towards the politics of New Zealand, which is a lot different to many other countries.

this is a very interesting perspective to me because I view the world differently, as an integrated system that every country participates in, for better or worse

what you are asking for is essentially a component of national sovereignty. personal feelings and implementation details aside, I feel that this will be inevitable for every country as nations grow increasingly antagonistic with each other

but it has to be understood that every country in the world submits to economic and political forces greater than itself. the idea that New Zealand or Denmark are functioning democracies through their own independent development would be a naive perspective in my opinion. the world itself is a macrocosm, a minority of rich nations exploiting a majority of poor nations, enforced through the military and economic power of a smaller subset of those rich nations - what is sometimes referred to as 'collective imperialism'

countries like New Zealand and Denmark find themselves in the benefitting end of that national hierarchy, but they do so at the cost of submitting a part of their independence to the global economic and political order

a good question to ask is: why doesn't this social media already exist? after all, it is technologically feasible, and if it is a good idea then it should have already been implemented in many countries. I think it will only happen when it becomes necessary as a point of conflict. if your country tried to implement this, if it were truly independent, they would most likely be punished for it, made out to be a villain, called a dictatorship, sanctioned, etc. and because of this it has more to gain, at this moment, from being dominated by foreign powers than it has to lose

but things are changing and anything can happen. my point was that you may be seriously underestimating your dependence on foreign interference (and it ultimately benefits your country). such technology would be a threat to international stability. you should definitely go for it, though be prepared to sacrifice everything

[Blog47177]

a social media where only a singular country can sign up, which is also managed by a government-funded organisation. I believe that this would be greatly beneficial to the country as people become more united, more social, more organised.

lost it right there, if you were to create a venue in which the government has an upper hand in, it will instead ease up their ability to control the masses, this won't end well
my only solution is to drop both social media and politics completely, and start deemphasizing the role of state in our daily lives

I respectfully disagree, as long as the government isnt doing a Turkey moment or a Russia moment, and is a properly functioning democracy like my country New Zealand, or like Denmark, then theres really nothing to worry about. But I sure wouldnt trust the UK or USA. Social Media is a unique tool to connect a country closer together and i think thats something to be engaged in and try it out. And I'm obviously taking this from my perspective which is highly biased towards the politics of New Zealand, which is a lot different to many other countries.

True I'm in the USA and some of us within the USA talk about looking at our allies like New Zealand, Canada, Denmark and Netherlands for a better functioning governments that are democracies only to get shot down by certain politicians who have interests in Russia for some reason.

Social media? No it's rife with political rantings and we see it in either US based ones like Meta, Twitter, Snapchat and Tumblr or Tik Tok which is owned by a Chinese investment company called Bytedance.

Sure for now the biggest idea to consider look at bbs for social media.

[Starfia]

Im not saying that New Zealanders have to ditch all other social media for this one…

I'm glad you're not suggesting an enforced restriction on New Zealanders' use of the Internet – that sounds plainly horrific.

… but to use it as a tool with communicating with other people from the same place and organise and do things and socialise.

As much as I dislike Facebook on principle, I would say it's been highly successful at allowing people to coordinate real-life events, if that's what you mean. For a while, it felt silly for businesses, local organizations, and even public schools not to involve themselves with it, because they'd be sacrificing a trafficked avenue for local interaction. Almost every other social network I'm aware of has failed in that area. Is a national government well positioned to succeed where almost every corporate social network has failed? That might also vary by nation, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The way i see it, and how many see it here, is that we society is very disconnected. the only way i see this being improved if there was a social media where only our society can interact in it, which will significantly improve everything and change our society to be better united.

I understood that sentiment the first time, and it still seems vague if not opaque.  It almost feels like it isn't really your idea, but something you've heard and are repeating for some reason. "Society is very disconnected," and your scheme would "significantly improve everything." What is the reasoning behind that? Could you walk me through a speculative detailed example of how, by comparison to another typical social network, it would slightly improve anything?

[artemis]

you lost me at government. i'm also a kiwi, just to mention that.
for me the beauty of the internet *is* that it's *worldwide*. you can talk to anyone, from anywhere, at any time. that blew my tiny mind as a kid and it's still why i love the internet so much today.
i think having something social so closed off and restricted could put you into a bit of dangerous rabbit hole, especially with any government involvement.

[GrassyTrams]

I think I realised i kinda screwed up when i put the government as a thing in it, From how I saw it, the government funding it would help with not creating restrictions or directly benefiting/profiting from its people. But, i mean all i just really wanted to talk about is if a nationally restricted social media was a good idea or not, not how it was funded or not. using of course Real Me which is government owned and already exists and is successful. like the social media can be totally funded by the people or given money from the government as just a thing to keep the service that benefits their country going. like initially i wanted my post to be loose with how it funded but i felt that was too complicated but now i realised making it just one answer wasnt a good idea

[soggybasahan]

I think I can agree with you on the point that social media is disconnecting people from each other, rather than connect them to each other. I can also agree with perhaps the fact that a huge part of the internet is all about more "Western/USAmerica and Europe" issues for lack of a better term, which of course we shouldn't ignore those issues but also it also sort of drowns out more local issues, so I can somewhat see where you're coming from when you say you want something that's exclusive to one particular nation.

However, I don't think something government owned/funded is going to be the answer for that. I'm not from New Zealand so I can't speak for how effective that might be, so I'm going to take your word that it's effective. However, not all nations have the same kind of effective system in place, and having a social networking site controlled by the government may lead down some slippery slopes like surveillance.

I think another way to implement some form of social media that's actually social should start from the people, perhaps with backing from a non-government, non-profit organization that's designed specifically for the cause. I've also seen a reply somewhere along the thread that mentions using the more mainstream sites like Facebook to forge actual connections. Unfortunately again, there are a lot of issues with that particular site but in terms of actual socializing, Facebook does a pretty okay job at it in my experience.

The last solution I can think of is perhaps decentralizing and federation - allowing for people to make their own social media. Of course, the problem now is getting people onto the specific platform, but that then includes some kind of shift in internet culture which circles back to the little steps we can do ourselves like encouraging people we know to hop on.

[Starfia]

Hey, GrassyTrams – I think that helps clarify what aspects of a platform you envision. It sounds like perhaps you care more about a strictly accurate representation on social media within a particular nation of the real people and their real lives in that nation than exactly how it's managed or who manages it.

It seems understandable that mentioning government funding produced a cautionary reaction, as there are current and past examples of government regulation of technology standards turning out to be clumsy or innovation-stifling. It's possible your government would do better than others at this, but I think people here just trying to be helpful by bringing that up.

It seems like the social space you're imagining might be startable by an individual, without the government's assistance. Strict verification could be contingent on actually video-calling the person or adhering to some researched standard for verifying their address or identification, or by externally referencing a stable service like "Real Me," if that's possible. If it works for a few people, and there's actually demand for it, and it's done well, maybe it would grow over time.

But, i mean all i just really wanted to talk about is if a nationally restricted social media was a good idea or not, not how it was funded or not.

I still don't personally see how being nationally exclusive is a good idea in principle – if I lived in New Zealand, I don't think I would join just for that – but creating scoped spaces (poker enthusiasts, history buffs, or, sure, just New Zealand residents) is one intended purpose of the Internet and the Web, and there's nothing particularly wrong with going for it.

[GaryStu]

I think there's already government-run social networks somewhere in the world, aren't there? I can't name any off the top of my head, but it sounds like something I've heard of. Sorry if I'm wrong here.

In any case, social networks for only one country already exist in spades, and don't need government ownership. You can register to these networks from outside of the target country, but then what? That's up to the individual, and there could be reasons for their registration. But people usually don't sign up to websites irrelevant to them. Its still quite rare to see, even in the present day, even on social networks as low-stakes and easy-to-join as a local subreddit or local facebook page. Self-filtering works alright.

Regional Mastodon instances are very common. I googled "New Zealand mastodon instance" and got a hit instantly. Maybe you'd be interested? https://nzserver.co

I also think barriers to registration would drive out the normies more than it drives away spammers. Its important to me that the internet is accessible to normies.

[windigo]

This concept reminds me a bit of Yik Yak. Basically you'd sign up 'anonymously' and then chat in a platform that reminds me a bit of twitter combined with reddit. What made this app special was the fact that you could speak with the people that lived up to 5 milles near you (the thing is that it breahes people's privacy because it knows your exact location.

Your concept could perhaps benefit the people since they'd ditch corporate giants such as Facebook, Whatsapp and such and it's also great because you can meet people outside your city/area if you dislike those people. The idea might sound great on paper but its implementation is what matters the most because maybe the people would dislike the UI, would think that it's 'lame' or not even know that it exists if it doesn't get advertised. There are many case scenarios which could ruin the idea.

[kazewa]

This concept reminds me a bit of Yik Yak. Basically you'd sign up 'anonymously' and then chat in a platform that reminds me a bit of twitter combined with reddit. What made this app special was the fact that you could speak with the people that lived up to 5 milles near you (the thing is that it breahes people's privacy because it knows your exact location.

There's an app like this called Jodel which is very popular in many European countries. (No surprise but people still argue about political stuff on there.)

Sad to be a downer but I don't see this changing much in the realm of division. If I go to a group, social media space, anything that's in my language, I can assume 99.9% of people there are either in or from this country, as it is very rare for foreigners to know the language. Even bots are often exposed by the simple fact that they make ridiculous grammar mistakes. Yet conversations can still be full of divide and people hating each other. I guess a government-run social media would be very heavy on moderation, (which I know certain individuals would have a field day complaining about). I personally think we have good democracy like New Zealand, so from that perspective it could work, but there are plenty of people who see any basic moderation (like "don't be an asshole") as them being silenced by the government.

That being said. It's great that the internet is worldwide, but I am also glad that we can also talk amongst each other in spaces where outsiders can't come in to stir the pot due to the language barrier. This is due to the simple fact that sometimes we need to discuss things that have to do with us only, that effects our lives only. It's not really something that outsiders would need to comment on. I understand it might be more difficult to build such spaces for English-speaking regions, when over a billion people around the world can understand English.

My point: Starting a new social media or Mastodon instance or what have you for a specific area or country is not a bad idea, but I do not think it would fix the division problem you mentioned.