• GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is true, but it doesn’t account for one of the major use cases of social media: connecting with specific people and groups you know IRL.

    People are not fungible, and thus social networks are not fungible either. Social media lives and dies by the network effect.

    This is less an issue for Lemmy as it is for Mastodon, I guess. But even so, Lemmy has yet to reach the point where you can find an active community on almost any niche subject, like you could on Reddit or Twitter. Hopefully we’ll reach that point eventually, and it would be a crying shame if it was then torn away by one dominant instance deciding to close up.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The other argument I’ve seen is technological … where the major corporation starts influencing the software to their advantage … over time enough software changes are made so that the ecosystem becomes dependent on those changes … developers keep getting nudged, encouraged or influenced to make changes or upgrades to accommodate corporates and their systems … then once enough changes have been implemented, the whole system becomes dominated and controlled by the corporates.

      If they can’t achieve instant take over, they don’t mind playing the long game and slowly dissolving and eroding the fediverse over time.

    • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

      In economics, a network effect (also called network externality or demand-side economies of scale) is the phenomenon by which the value or utility a user derives from a good or service depends on the number of users of compatible products. Network effects are typically positive feedback systems, resulting in users deriving more and more value from a product as more users join the same network. The adoption of a product by an additional user can be broken into two effects: an increase in the value to all other users (total effect) and also the enhancement of other non-users' motivation for using the product (marginal effect).Network effects can be direct or indirect. Direct network effects arise when a given user's utility increases with the number of other users of the same product or technology, meaning that adoption of a product by different users is complementary. This effect is separate from effects related to price, such as a benefit to existing users resulting from price decreases as more users join. Direct network effects can be seen with social networking services, including Twitter, Facebook, Airbnb, Uber, and LinkedIn; telecommunications devices like the telephone; and instant messaging services such as MSN, AIM or QQ. Indirect (or cross-group) network effects arise when there are "at least two different customer groups that are interdependent, and the utility of at least one group grows as the other group(s) grow". For example, hardware may become more valuable to consumers with the growth of compatible software. Network effects are commonly mistaken for economies of scale, which describe decreasing average production costs in relation to the total volume of units produced. Economies of scale are a common phenomenon in traditional industries such as manufacturing, whereas network effects are most prevalent in new economy industries, particularly information and communication technologies. Network effects are the demand side counterpart of economies of scale, as they function by increasing a customer's willingness to pay due rather than decreasing the supplier's average cost.Upon reaching critical mass, a bandwagon effect can result. As the network continues to become more valuable with each new adopter, more people are incentivised to adopt, resulting in a positive feedback loop. Multiple equilibria and a market monopoly are two key potential outcomes in markets that exhibit network effects. Consumer expectations are key in determining which outcomes will result.

      article | about

    • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Maybe this is already a thing, but it seems like allowing communities to be migrated from instance to instance would be a great thing for avoiding takeovers.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hopefully we’ll reach that point eventually, and it would be a crying shame if it was then torn away by one dominant instance deciding to close up.

      i see a ton of activity in both the development arena(client apps/servers) and content generation across (bots) the verse. im not convinced it has enough momentum but it just feels soo close to sustainable. my corner of the verse seems a bit dependent on the lemmys, but i dont think its forever.

      i dont see the doom and gloom others do with metas instance. i see it as an off-ramp… the network communication required for metas users to be able to leave that old place behind and still communicate with their old friends.