Well, if you are serious Musk

What we are seeing now on Twitter is a mainstream pushback against the platform itself and once it begins, there will be no going back.

No, a new platform isn't needed - many platforms are needed. But it doesn't matter what that platform says it will do, if it is not decentralized, it is going to fail to provide true free speech, as it is going to be subject to the pressures on that centralized organization and its ability to be influenced by public or government opinion. We have seen this time and time again, where something is meant to offer a better way, but as soon as there is strong enough resistance, even if that is from an outspoken minority, it will change its ways - because it still has to make money, it still has to provide a place that attracts users and offer them something of value.

Centralized medias are going to fail because they are too rigid in their structure to be able to cater for all of their audience, so what they end up doing is catering to the ones that earn them the most which is why, freedom of speech suffers so heavily.

But, decentralized media the likes of Hive is able to provide the best of both worlds as while it is able to be brought together under the "platform" umbrella at the code level, the second-layer can be segmented endlessly to provide all kinds of different experiences, including places that are tailored to earn and places that are tailored for open freedom of speech - because of the decentralized nature of it, both are able to live and thrive simultaneously, without encroaching on the other and, both are protected "from each other" through the same mechanism.

What this means is that a game like Splinterlands can co-exist and even benefit heavily from a Twitter-like application on the same platform, including overlapping user base, whilst catering specifically for its target audience through tailored value propositions for them. The Twitter-esque site can do the same, offering a completely different experience, right down to the tokenization model (if they choose to have one) without encroachment on Splinterlands.

The shared accounts and the ability for "synergistic" (compounding) usecases and leverages is highly valuable and actually acts as a further protection, as it means that even if a specific layer-two application becomes abusive in some way or shuts down, its userbase isn't tied to the application alone, as there is the base-layer of the blockchain that protects them and the application can essentially be copied and restarted, with minimal disruption to the user or audience.

If musk is truly serious about setting up a new social media platform to rival Twitter and values opensource technology, he should start right and begin with Hive and build a team that can leverage the current tech and add insight and resources into future development also. The reason is, that it is already proven, already decentralized, already crypto-enabled and has years of track record under its belt, including an "origin story" that should resonate with anyone who values freedom of speech.

Is Hive ready?

It would be tight at this point, however, after the next HF that is tentatively scheduled by @blocktrades for the end of April, there should be a lot more framework for application development to build upon, as well as scalability improvements. But even without this, there is plenty of opportunity to build tailored communities and there is plenty of opensource code and solution experts who can help for example, a "Musk development team" get up and running in the matter of days, not weeks, months or years - without having to leverage centralized platforms, nor rely on centralized tech - everything opensource and available.

The other value of doing it this way for Musk is, he and his organizations are going to increasingly come under fire as they are able to attract more support that can start to threaten the establishment. Building on Hive means while they do the dev work, the platform isn't actually theirs (if they design it to be decentralized) and if freedom of speech is important, it can be propagated endlessly, globally and immutably, meaning it is highly resistant to censorship - as it has always been.

This is the thing that needs to happen, as while people seem to think for example downvotes are censorship because they take value away, the value of censorship resistance is a standalone affair - it has value in and of itself, if that is what you value. Someone who understands the value of censorship resistance is @theycallmedan, who was also commenting on the Musk tweet and mentioning hiveblocks as a solution. Freedom of speech isn't in the tokenization layer, it is in the fundamental technology layer - it is just that most people focus on the "money" aspect of the blockchain, so assume that it is the only value there is.

I will say it again and keep saying it, the future war is between centralization and decentralization and that means that what is considered valuable in the future is changing also, including the concept of what is money and, who can control and back it. Part of this battle is in the understanding that in order for people to control their own financial destiny, they have to be part of systems that allow them to control their own informational activity too. The reason why the centralized platforms don't opensource their algorithms is because it is their competitive advantage and what they use to make money. If everyone can do it, they lose the ability to sell that data to third parties to target, including targeting for suppression of speech.

I don't believe that Elon Musk would ever consider actually leveraging the available tech of Hive to build a social platform, but it goes to show how important this technology is and, how mainstream the conversation is becoming. Eventually, people will look for alternatives and, people will look this way. Hive might always be niche and fringe, but we are part of the narrative.

Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]