Information to consider when choosing a new Social Media home:

Information to consider when choosing a new Social Media home:

The world view of a network owner drives how they govern the service. This is turn drives what money backs them and therefore stimulates initial growth. Over time, the market drives the rise and fall of any network. This directly correlates to whether the network is moderated without bias or moderated at all. We already see evidence of bias in certain networks governed by the alt-right. Gab is only one of them. Reports by multiple users, proud announcements by owners of their political views, and obvious marketing show MeWe and Minds are also in the same space as Gab.

While I give each technology a fair shake, the world view of owners of these networks matter. Reports of bias by some in moderating user content should concern everyone looking for a new home. Influencing a company owned service politically is a fool's errand IMO. Businesses, organizations, and individuals have a legal right to decide who their customers will be and how they treat them in accordance with law - these are not taxpayer owned spaces. I am not in agreement with the political view of the people who run Gab, MeWe, or Minds. But I do not believe social media users can change those views. Users have no right to tell companies how to run their business (as long as they comply with law) but they do have the power to make choices to find a home elsewhere if they choose.

Hate is not a crime. Hate speech is not always a crime but it can be. In many cases it does infringe on the civil rights of others. Many companies have policies against hate speech in their terms of service for good business reasons. Those who engage in hate speech view those terms as infringing on their rights but legally it is not. There are legal precedent rulings along these lines not being enforced and that needs to change. Legal limits on speech in the USA and in Europe, UK, Australia, etc exist and are a reflection of the will of democratic people. There is also a legal difference between public space and private space. Let's look at both:

For the first: It is against the law to use speech for: inciting riots, crime, or other actions endangering the lives of others; harming others through libel, slander, defamation, etc; weakening national security; and more. While hate is not a crime - illegal actions as a result of hate can be. Facilitating illegal activity makes one an accessory to a crime. In the case of civil torts, third party liabilities are a strong consideration because that can cause profit loss. Companies, especially publicly traded corporations, have concern for their legal liabilities. In other words, they care about what costs them money.

For the second: "Public" space in the USA is defined as space owned or funded by the public (taxpayers), i.e. government facilities, public schools and universities, hospitals, etc. AND official government accounts in private spaces like FB, G+, Twitter, etc. Personal or unofficial accounts in those private spaces are not public space.

Private space is defined by private ownership like individuals, organizations and companies. All social networks not owned by the public are treated in the same manner as businesses. They have a right to control what is said and what the ambiance is in their space be it a restaurant, church, home, club, etc. In the online private space, this is governed by a Terms of Service by which owners have the right to enforce.

Free speech is a concept not an absolute in a civil society. However, there are also other user rights in consideration under the law and those relate to discrimination. In the online space, this aligns with bias when moderating the online space. If a terms of service is not enforced without bias, the company or individual may be subject to scrutiny regarding discrimination legally. Even if a legal line is not crossed, the publicity alone can destroy a company and that is why some are taking action - because no lawyer in the world can save them from negative impacts regarding public perception (which happens immediately while legal action takes years and can be hidden).

So why do I mention all this? Because many of us have been through this before and didn't like the outcome. The goal of many of these networks is to get you in and hooked on the service offerings because they know it will be hard to move if your friends are there and your content is not exportable by you. I don't blame businesses for wanting to make a profit but I do think it should be ethical because the content is user generated - it belongs to the users IMO and users should not be exploited for profit.

So, rather than tell yourselves they are all the same and hope for the best, what we can do differently this time is inform each other about not just technology but about how networks are run by posting evidence of bias or evidence of hidden policies. Users have the power to affect change by making choices about where the next space they call home will be. This is different than saying oh let's move in and change it.

Offline, when we look for a new neighborhood, we assess the people that live there first then we look at the features of the neighborhood if and only if the people in that neighborhood are people we want to live near. We may not agree with a neighbor but we have a certain expectation of civil behavior based on law and what is considered socially acceptable.

Social media communities are based on the people in them but they are all private space not public space. We should apply the very same scrutiny in selecting a new social media home as we would a new neighborhood home. Considerations include:

what are the people like?

what is the crime like?

what are the costs?

if i move can i take things with me?

is it safe and secure?

will i be treated fairly?

who controls access?

can one person kick me out and keep my stuff?

For social networks, there are two types: single authority (centralized) that cannot communicate with other networks and federated (decentralized) that can communicate with other networks that use federated protocols.

Any single authority can: kick you out and keep your stuff; control your access to the space AND everyone else's access to your space; control how you will be treated; and control pricing. These are all incentives for administrators to become corrupt and not in the best interest of users IMO. How a single authority treats its users is directly related to their motivation for risk/reward.

In the federated space (many social network types), the power is in the hands of the users because the incentives for administrators to be corrupt are greatly reduced by design. You control your existence; you control and own your content; you control your privacy rights; you control who has access to you; and you control costs without worrying about potential bias of a single authority that may or may not be corrupted. You control your risk/reward.

In addition, there are other pros: it can be a forever home, a nomadic home, or a temporary home; there are many "neighborhood choices with intersections" because the neighborhoods all agree to federated protocols for interaction; you can build your own neighborhood or move to an existing one; and you can, in some cases, change the way the neighborhood looks any time.

For me, the versatile nature of the federated social web is why that is where I will be socializing and making a home. It does not mean I will not have a presence elsewhere - consider those more like other locales like work, school, gym, gaming club, etc where you may have some of your things for specific purposes or to stay in touch with people in those locales.