Building a new social (or a "chain" of them): your suggestions

fullautotrading

fullautotrading

I am following up on the idea discussed in the censorship thread:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...edin-after-decades.374968/page-2#post-5826632

Since I see from the posts that several people here are interested in social media, I think it's just a good idea, before coding up or publishing anything, to hear your suggestions.

For instance, I just read the post from aquarian1, about the need for a channel for good vibes for the day, and actually, it seems a remarkably bright idea for a "category" (or "forum") within a new social.

Now, my idea is to build first of all a social media which will essentially replace LinkedIn :), in terms of attracting professional interest, but which feels more like a nice discussion place just like Elite Trader (of which, as said, I much admire the clarity of layout and presentation capabilities.)

I will therefore be starting up some ideas for "categories" (or "forums" if you prefer) of discussion, hoping to receive your suggestions/corrections too.

As TimtheEnchanter said, even Trump failed to build a new social medium, but who cares. Just enjoy the journey: success is the journey itself :)

(My idea, is also to use the same basis to, eventually, create even a series of social media, all for good discussions, which would point to each other. Clearly, starting from the areas which interest me most and where I have some competence. No porn sorry :))
 
Now, my initial basic ideas would be as follows.


- No censorship. No propaganda whatsoever. No occult advertising.

- Individual users will never be asked $$$ in any form (if eventually, in the far future, the site should become interesting for advertising, this will only regard well-established companies).

- Users will be free to advertise transparently their projects (it will be the task of other users to spot possible frauds or point out problems).

- Users will be able to expose their profile publically which will be publically reachable.

- The only way to be banned would be to show blatant disregard and disrespect for other users and the general interest.

- Posts will have no (significant) limits to the images and attachments that can be uploaded.

- Posts will be editable at any time and continuous quality improvement is welcome.

- Posts will also be exposed publically as stand-alone pages on the web (independent of the site).


(...)
 
I am not sure what you mean, newwurldmn.

Do you mean I should specify “freedom of speech” as the very first point? "No censorship" should be implying freedom of speech. Or no?

(Also remember that "freedom of speech" is never meant to be "absolute", but it usually vanishes where other people's freedoms and rights begin.)


newwurldmn said:
The challenge of “freedom of speech.”

your first point already fails.
More...
 
fullautotrading said:
I am not sure what you mean, newwurldmn.

Do you mean I should specify “freedom of speech” as the very first point? "No censorship" should be implying freedom of speech. Or no?

(Also remember that "freedom of speech" is never meant to be "absolute", but it usually vanishes where other people's freedoms and rights begin.)
More...

no censorship but not propaganda (whatever that means) and no occult advertising (whatever that means).
 
newwurldmn said:
no censorship but not propaganda (whatever that means) and no occult advertising (whatever that means).
More...

By "propaganda" I mean systematically misleading and unilateral "information", promoted by the media itself. The media management is not a "user" (or should not be an active actor in prioritizing some political or sponsored views).

That would hurt the rights and opinions of a large part of the users (no matter who is" right"), and often even the objective "truth".

Clearly, that would be detected by the latter and exposed. The crucial point here is that those who raise their voice against a social medium pushing propaganda will not be silenced or ostracized.

This is not what happens on LinkedIn, for instance. About the Ukraine war, essentially you can only see the pro-Zelensky hammering posts, for instance.
Bing seems to be the best search engine (even though I have never seen anyone use it :) ). Simons is a genius greater than Warren Buffet, to whom is constantly compared. Nadella is another great genius. "Quantum" finance is something that makes sense, and so on ...

Where are the other voices?
 
Last edited:
But you aren’t going to censor propoganda or occult advertising? If so, Who is going to decide what is propoganda and what is occult advertising?

fullautotrading said:
By "propaganda" I mean systematically misleading and unilateral "information", promoted by the media itself. The media management is not a "user" (or should not be an active actor in prioritizing some political or sponsored views).

That would hurt the rights and opinions of a large part of the users (no matter who is" right"), and often even the objective "truth".

Clearly, that would be detected by the latter and exposed. The crucial point here is that those who raise their voice against a social medium pushing propaganda will not be silenced or ostracized.

This is not what happens on LinkedIn, for instance. About the Ukraine war, essentially you can only see the pro-Zelensky hammering posts, for instance.
Bing seems to be the best search engine (even though I have never seen anyone use it :) ). Simons is a genius greater than Warren Buffet, to whom is constantly compared. Nadella is another great genius. "Quantum" finance is something that makes sense, and so on ...

Where are the other voices?
More...
 
Ok, now I finally get what you intended to mean in your first reply.

A user's genuine opinion is never to be censored, imho. I was referring to the "propaganda" pushed by social media itself (his management).

If a user is pro-Zelesky and gives his arguments, that is perfectly fine. Someone with a different opinion will argue with him. And that is also fine.

The problem is if I, acting as a site moderator or as the site "Trust & Safety Team", start harassing or kicking out all the users with an opinion on one side only.

Another problem is if I get paid to say Simons is a genius, and systematically push posts as if they were true opinions of actual users.

Other than that, any user can obviously say whatever he likes (clearly, in respect of the limit of the law). For instance, Simons could log in and affirm he is a genius and talk to us about the EMH. And another user could freely respond with the reason why he thinks he is a crook, and why the EMH is useless nonsense.

Nadella could come and say Bing is the best search engine and has the highest level of Artificial Intelligence in the world, and I could respond it can't even translate a simple text, as shown in the other thread. And he would explain why ...

And all that is fine. Integrity and transparency are the keys, imho.


newwurldmn said:
But you aren’t going to censor propaganda or occult advertising? If so, Who is going to decide what is propaganda and what is occult advertising?
More...
 
Last edited:
fullautotrading said:
Ok, now I finally get what you intended to mean in your first reply.

A user's genuine opinion is never censored, imho. I was referring to the "propaganda" pushed by social media itself (his management).

If a user is pro-Zelesky and gives his arguments, that is perfectly fine. Someone with a different opinion will argue with him. And that is also fine.

The problem is if I, acting as a site moderator or site security, start harassing or kicking out all users with an opinion on one side only.

Another problem is if I get paid to say Simons is a genius, and systematically push posts as if they were true opinions of actual users.

Other than that any user can say whatever he likes (clearly in respect of the limit of the law). For instance, Simons could log in and affirm he is a genius and talk to us about the EFM. And another user could freely respond with the reason why he thinks he is a crook and why the EFM is useless nonsense.

Nadella could come and say Bing is the best search engine and has the highest Artificial Intelligence in the world, and I could respond it can't even translate a simple text, as shown in the other thread. And he would explain why ...

And all that is fine.
More...

i'm pretty sure you weren't banned for calling out Microsoft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top