I have no idea how this works. But I'm wondering if there is a way for new social media companies to emerge that do not have to rely on the usual censoring suspects for existence. If such is possible, are any in the works?

Or do current platforms enjoy an unbreakable and permanent oligopoly, where it is impossible for new and independent competition to emerge?

Sure hope so.

I can't wait for FB and Twitter to get what is coming to them.

They should be.


Problem may be finding the funding to do it

Tanya 93 said:

---

They should be.


Problem may be finding the funding to do it

---

Is it really all that expensive?

Why is it so expensive?

I honestly don't know the answers

Chicken and egg with user base and attracting users and advertisers/investers.

That's why there is one dominant platform in each social media niche: everyone gravitates around the one with the most content and biggest audience, no matter how crappy or good the product is after a while, because a bigger user base begets even more user base.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Chicken and egg with user base and attracting users and advertisers/investers.

That's why there is one dominant platform in each social media niche: everyone gravitates around the one with the most content and biggest audience, no matter how crappy or good the product is after a while, because a bigger user base begets even more user base.

---

Yeah for now

But why not start smaller and grow? Nobody has to be Twitter or FB overnight

And the base would grow. Parler exploded in users until they were torched

What they didn't have was an independent platform

Captain Pablo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

They should be.


Problem may be finding the funding to do it

---

Is it really all that expensive?

Why is it so expensive?

I honestly don't know the answers

---

Servers. Who owns the amount of server space required to host such a platform? Remember what happened to the last competitor - AWS unplugged them. Anyone who wants to start a new one knows now that you cant use AWS, Google, or Microsoft to host. Gotta have your own which is $$$$$$$$$

tk111 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

They should be.


Problem may be finding the funding to do it

---

Is it really all that expensive?

Why is it so expensive?

I honestly don't know the answers

---

Servers. Who owns the amount of server space required to host such a platform? Remember what happened to the last competitor - AWS unplugged them. Anyone who wants to start a new one knows now that you cant use AWS, Google, or Microsoft to host. Gotta have your own which is $$$$$$$$$

---

How much are we talking about here?

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3186253/replies/58864750

I think you're missing the key attraction of a social media platform, which is that it derives its value from its user base.

Twitter is cool because so many people use it. I login and immediately get updates on data science, Bill Burr jokes, sports highlights, etc. all next to each other. If, on the other hand, the user base is tiny and the content creation is very limited, new users won't join because there's not much point and current users will eventually quit because they grow tired of tweeting (or whatever) into the empty void. That is, with social media, you have to rocket to some sustainable critical level or you'll fail due to having an uninteresting product.

Captain Pablo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

They should be.

Problem may be finding the funding to do it

---

Is it really all that expensive?

Why is it so expensive?

I honestly don't know the answers

---

Unfortunately it is. To name a few:

1) Multiple data centers across the globe
2) Server hardware capable of supporting millions of simultaneous/active connections
3) Network/Security hardware
4) Multiple high-speed/redundant network pipes
5) GSLB (load balancing), CDN (content delivery), DDoS, etc services

and that is just the physical. You also have some money in developing the code to run. It is doable and you don't have to do it all at once. You can build and scale to your user base, but quite a bit of the above has to be in place to get started.

When they (Twitter/Facebook) fail, it will be directly because they opened the door for competition by censorship. If not for that, I think the possibility starting something would be very close to impossible. Keep in mind, these companies have not had to worry about competition for decades and are not geared accordingly. My fingers are crossed some of the old guys get mad at the fact the Internet is no longer a place for free and open debate. Any number of those guys could raise the capital and build a serious competitive product.

Captain Pablo said:

---

I have no idea how this works. But I'm wondering if there is a way for new social media companies to emerge that do not have to rely on the usual censoring suspects for existence. If such is possible, are any in the works?

Or do current platforms enjoy an unbreakable and permanent oligopoly, where it is impossible for new and independent competition to emerge?

---

Indeed there is. Its secret and it I told you I'd have to... You know.

Its not hard to build new software, tons of great open source development tools available at no cost. Such as the LAMP stack and others, The problems aren't technical they're marketing and human nature issues.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Chicken and egg with user base and attracting users and advertisers/investers.

That's why there is one dominant platform in each social media niche: everyone gravitates around the one with the most content and biggest audience, no matter how crappy or good the product is after a while, because a bigger user base begets even more user base.

---

And this is the human nature problem I mentioned above. Its the same with broadcast and print media. But there was an event in the '90's that showed the way and can be repeated. FOX news

Building sites that cater to conservatives and traditionalist. IF they nut up and market themselves as such they will succeed. Its a vast and undeserved market.

I'm working one. Any LAMP stack developers out there.

Here's double-lifetime convicted felon Silk Road Entrepreneur Ross Ulbrichts's vision of decentralized media platform.

https://rossulbricht.medium.com/decentralize-social-media-cc47dcfd4f99

ttu_85 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

I have no idea how this works. But I'm wondering if there is a way for new social media companies to emerge that do not have to rely on the usual censoring suspects for existence. If such is possible, are any in the works?

Or do current platforms enjoy an unbreakable and permanent oligopoly, where it is impossible for new and independent competition to emerge?

---

Indeed there is. Its secret and it I told you I'd have to... You know.

Its not hard to build new software, tons of great open source development tools available at no cost. Such as the LAMP stack and others, The problems aren't technical they're marketing and human nature issues.

---

It's also a business issue around timing. The first 8 months after a new president is sworn in, though most of us regulars here are political junkies, is not a good time to start a new operation to drive a widespread user base around politics.

Ideally, I think we will see some big announcements late-summer, with at least a few platforms getting out there (and used/championed by conservative leaders) as we head into 2022 primary season. The debates/decisions about privacy/verification/censorship/ownership, and what to do about ad revenue (this will be a problem for anything not CCP-Dem-endorsed) will have to be planned out well in advance too.

Gab and Rumble aren't too bad. I do hope to see the revamped/hosted Parler make it as well, though I know some don't like their decisions on the above.

Captain Pablo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

They should be.


Problem may be finding the funding to do it

---

Is it really all that expensive?

Why is it so expensive?

I honestly don't know the answers

---

I do not know


I gave an opinion

We fixed the keg said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

They should be.

Problem may be finding the funding to do it

---

Is it really all that expensive?

Why is it so expensive?

I honestly don't know the answers

---

Unfortunately it is. To name a few:

1) Multiple data centers across the globe
2) Server hardware capable of supporting millions of simultaneous/active connections
3) Network/Security hardware
4) Multiple high-speed/redundant network pipes
5) GSLB (load balancing), CDN (content delivery), DDoS, etc services

and that is just the physical. You also have some money in developing the code to run. It is doable and you don't have to do it all at once. You can build and scale to your user base, but quite a bit of the above has to be in place to get started.

When they (Twitter/Facebook) fail, it will be directly because they opened the door for competition by censorship. If not for that, I think the possibility starting something would be very close to impossible. Keep in mind, these companies have not had to worry about competition for decades and are not geared accordingly. My fingers are crossed some of the old guys get mad at the fact the Internet is no longer a place for free and open debate. Any number of those guys could raise the capital and build a serious competitive product.

---

I agree with some of this. But even twitter and FB began small. Yes if your goal is to launch with global reach with millions of connections its expensive. But not all products have to begin that way. Yes I know slow execution speed and slow service if the site is too small. Huge risk if the infrastructure and debt is huge and the product fails to meet expectations. Hitting this exactly right is difficult. Maybe it doesn't have to begin "exactly right." to succeed. Regardless its going to be awhile before we can match Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/Twitter. But dont forget lots of people hate these companies. We need to get counters on the market as soon as possible.

BY the way you dont fight future wars exclusively with AK's and AR's they will also be fought with 1's and 0's

With no small degree of irony, Paul Krugman got his Nobel prize in economics for studying the value that many cultures place on having at least a choice, even if the choices add cost, simply because choice itself has a psychological value.

Monopolies can be very efficient but they aren't a choice, so there is a window for a less efficient competitor to work simply by providing that second choice, but it is not an easy path to take.

Gab.com and GabTV have their own servers.

nortex97 said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

I have no idea how this works. But I'm wondering if there is a way for new social media companies to emerge that do not have to rely on the usual censoring suspects for existence. If such is possible, are any in the works?

Or do current platforms enjoy an unbreakable and permanent oligopoly, where it is impossible for new and independent competition to emerge?

---

Indeed there is. Its secret and it I told you I'd have to... You know.

Its not hard to build new software, tons of great open source development tools available at no cost. Such as the LAMP stack and others, The problems aren't technical they're marketing and human nature issues.

---

It's also a business issue around timing. The first 8 months after a new president is sworn in, though most of us regulars here are political junkies, is not a good time to start a new operation to drive a widespread user base around politics.

Ideally, I think we will see some big announcements late-summer, with at least a few platforms getting out there (and used/championed by conservative leaders) as we head into 2022 primary season. The debates/decisions about privacy/verification/censorship/ownership, and what to do about ad revenue (this will be a problem for anything not CCP-Dem-endorsed) will have to be planned out well in advance too.

Gab and Rumble aren't too bad. I do hope to see the revamped/hosted Parler make it as well, though I know some don't like their decisions on the above.

---

My idea of catering to conservatives can take many forms in addition to politics driven Social Media, Books, movies, other IP creations can be marketed as well as trinkets, such as coffee cups, stickers, tee-shirts and other clothing. for example. As far as ad revenue I suspect you may see many competitive products dueling it out in this lucrative under-served market. Plus we get our ideas out to the masses. We cant let the libtards own the future.

All this is done via Web applications. Again tons of tools and developers. I'd love to help make this happen.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

With no small degree of irony, Paul Krugman got his Nobel prize in economics for studying the value that many cultures place on having at least a choice, even if the choices add cost, simply because choice itself has a psychological value.

Monopolies can be very efficient but they aren't a choice, so there is a window for a less efficient competitor to work simply by providing that second choice, but it is not an easy path to take.

---

True and monopolies and oligopolies over-time become hated and resented. AT&T, HomeDepot, Walmart, Apple ETC. Yes they are efficient but greed sets in leaving gaps. A free market allows the gaps to be found then hit with a pry-bar

Quote:

---

I agree with some of this. But even twitter and FB began small. Yes if your goal is to launch with global reach with millions of connections its expensive. But not all products have to begin that way. Yes I know slow execution speed and slow service if the site is too small. Huge risk if the infrastructure and debt is huge and the product fails to meet expectations. Hitting this exactly right is difficult. Maybe it doesn't have to begin "exactly right." to succeed. Regardless its going to be awhile before we can match Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/Twitter. But dont forget lots of people hate these companies. We need to get counters on the market as soon as possible.

BY the way you dont fight future wars exclusively with AK's and AR's they will also be fought with 1's and 0's

---

Well, to be fair, twitter/FB began small because it was a new market. Social Media as we know it today came to life in the 2003-2006 window. The challenge here is the product isn't something like a hamburger where you can make an equal or better and slowly attract more and more customers. The product here is the hundreds of millions of consumers you are instantly connected to.

What is the key here is they have abandoned an entire customer base. So, they have opened the door to competition because the new platform can be completely neutral and non-agenda driven. Even with that, you are going to have pay for the infrastructure and build it in a way it can grow, and grow rapidly. A slow or unstable platform would assuredly kill the effort. And whatever you create cannot be dependent on AWS, Microsoft, or any other agenda driven company who FB/Twitter are in bed with. Having worked for multiple Silicon Valley companies, they may appear to "compete" in the open, but they are all in bed with each other when the doors are closed.

Captain Pablo said:

---

I have no idea how this works. But I'm wondering if there is a way for new social media companies to emerge that do not have to rely on the usual censoring suspects for existence. If such is possible, are any in the works?

Or do current platforms enjoy an unbreakable and permanent oligopoly, where it is impossible for new and independent competition to emerge?

---

They are not just in the works. They are already available. Click on the link above for a small list. Add SaidIt, Discord, Mastodon, Mewe and many many others that didn't even make that list. There are a ton of free speech alternatives already available.

Reminder: the product of a social media company is access to you. You and all it's users in the form of advertising and data mining to sell back to advertisers.

You can't start a social media company without vast amounts of capital with the hopes of attracting enough users quickly to start becoming solvent.

Twitter can be bought.

The Brave devs are working on a new search engine that will actually index the web, like Google and Bing.

Use Bing or Duck for searches. Microsoft is not nearly as bad as Google as far as modifying results. Google is flat out evil.

Thanks all

But i still wonder, Even if someone comes up with a new social media company that has its own servers, what is to stop Internet service providers, app stores like Apple
And google play, domain sellers, and anyone else from black listing the new company?

I really do not know much about how all of this works

But it seems like there are an infinite number of entry barriers

Captain Pablo said:

---

Thanks all

But i still wonder, Even if someone comes up with a new social media company that has it on platform, what is the stop Internet service providers, app stores like Apple
And google play, domain sellers, and anyone else from black listing the new company?

I really do not know much about how all of this works

But it seems like there are an infinite number of entry barriers

---

For Apple that is true. For Android, you don't have to go through the store.

But yeah you are right, that's why the argument of "build your own whatever" is idiotic. That's why libs use it, because idiotic is what they do.

No.

If there were, big tech would not allow them in phones, tablets, etc.

Captain Pablo said:

---

Thanks all

But i still wonder, Even if someone comes up with a new social media company that has its own servers, what is to stop Internet service providers, app stores like Apple
And google play, domain sellers, and anyone else from black listing the new company?

I really do not know much about how all of this works

But it seems like there are an infinite number of entry barriers

---

I access all the alt tech social platforms through the brave browser. No issues so far. No need for an invasive app on my phone. Brave blocks all the adware and tracking.

Why download the app? It's unnecessary. Do you use an app for Texags?

Middle out. Easy.

ttu,

Let's talk. I'm in Lubbock.

Gumby said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Thanks all

But i still wonder, Even if someone comes up with a new social media company that has its own servers, what is to stop Internet service providers, app stores like Apple
And google play, domain sellers, and anyone else from black listing the new company?

I really do not know much about how all of this works

But it seems like there are an infinite number of entry barriers

---

I access all the alt tech social platforms through the brave browser. No issues so far. No need for an invasive app on my phone. Brave blocks all the adware and tracking.

Why download the app? It's unnecessary. Do you use an app for Texags?

---

I don't necessarily need an app for social media

But if the goal is to sign up a billion users, you'll need an app because that's what a lot of people want

Captain Pablo said:

---

Gumby said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Thanks all

But i still wonder, Even if someone comes up with a new social media company that has its own servers, what is to stop Internet service providers, app stores like Apple
And google play, domain sellers, and anyone else from black listing the new company?

I really do not know much about how all of this works

But it seems like there are an infinite number of entry barriers

---

I access all the alt tech social platforms through the brave browser. No issues so far. No need for an invasive app on my phone. Brave blocks all the adware and tracking.

Why download the app? It's unnecessary. Do you use an app for Texags?

---

I don't necessarily need an app for social media

But if the goal is to sign up a billion users, you'll need an app because that's what a lot of people want

---

I think the future is decentralized, targeted social media more akin to Texags than Facebook. We have already seen the problem of having platforms with billions of users.