Peak Centralized Social Media Part 2
The other day I wrote an article titled "Peak Centralized Social Media". In it I stated that we likely have seen, or are real close, to the high point in centralized social media.
It is a concept that can be tough to swallow. There is no doubt that companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are very powerful. The reach these companies have along with the influence they wield is enormous.
However, there are stirring that will end up bringing the entire system down. I believe we are near that point where things are changing very rapidly.
The Twitter hack is still making news. Even though it was isolated to under 150 accounts and the amount of money scammed was not that large, proportionately speaking, it garnered a lot of attention. The mainstream media is, naturally, spinning it as a Bitcoin problem but we all know that is a farce.
What is really in place here is the ability of centralized entities to protect people's (read celebrities) identities. Social media became such a vital force in our live, it is almost an extension of ourselves. This is especially true for the celebrities who use it as a way to connect with their fans.
As the digital world becomes a larger part of our lives and Web 3.0 begins to emerge, joining our physical, digital, and biological lives, suddenly security becomes a major point of discussion. It is one thing to have your computer infected with malware, it is another to have your avatar hijacked. At the same time, more powerful technologies are appearing where security is paramount. Autonomous vehicles, drones, and robots are a prime example.
For the time being, Twitter is now in the cross hairs of the United States Congress. Jack Dorsey is going to be pulled in front of the fossils in the Senate to answer questions. While this might end up being another dog and pony show similar to the Zuckerberg affair, it does show how these companies are now on the radar.
In addition to lawmakers, there is a more concerning issues for these companies. Individuals who are affected are now dragging their asses into court.
Another social media giant just got hit by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. Google is named in a lawsuit for allowing his name to be used in cryptocurrency scams. I would expect that he is not going to be the last celebrity to take this course of action.
https://thedailychain.com/centralized-social-platforms-under-pressure-as-apple-co-founder-sues-youtube-over-crypto-scams/
Here is where we see a ton of pressure building and the plight of the social media giants. In short, they are in a no-win situation. This is why their days are limited.
Ultimately, what is being asked is these situation is for the social media companies to ensure people's digital security. They are being tasked with deciding what is real or fake. More pressure is being applied for them to protect individual identities from being hacked or having their names used for nefarious purposes.
In response to the Twitter affair, Charles Hoskinson, of Ethereum and Cardano fame, stated that it did not have to change all that much. His solution is adding a cryptographic signature as part of the process. This could certainly help to authenticate the real users and protect accounts.
https://blockchain.news/news/charles-hoskinson-proposes-solution-fix-twitter-problem-digital-identity-blockchain-age
However, this does not relieve the social media giants of the liability associated with "allowing" people's identities to be used in scams and other illegal activities. Fake accounts meant to mirror the real accounts are commonly used for these purposed (for example; Barrack Obama instead of Barack Obama).
If Wozniak is successful in his case, this will open the door for others to follow. Think of someone like Elon Musk who's name was used in multiple cryptocurrency scams. He would likely have a case against Twitter, YouTube, and perhaps Facebook.
Thus far, the social media giants have escaped, for the most part, liability for their actions. Security is going to become a bigger part of the mainstream discussion especially now that an alternative to centralization exists. Decentralized systems such as blockchain can help to protect data to a greater degree than what we see presently used. While it is not 100%, it does take things to an added layer that can eliminate a great deal of what we are seeing.
Of course, if something is decentralized, this also removes the point of responsibility from lawsuits such as what Google is facing.
How many judgments does a Twitter or a YouTube need to endure before they realize they cannot afford to keep going in the same manner? At the same time, how many more situations will need to make the news before people really start to question how we do things?
Obviously, this is not an overnight process but the downhill slide is starting. The foundation upon which social media is built is cracking. As we see more tools appearing on the decentralization front, this will only put more pressure on these companies.
Here we see two articles that appear on the same day that discuss this topic. That was not the case 6 months ago.
Of course, many will say that these companies can just change their ways. Certainly, that is a path they will try to take but, in the end, it will be a half-ass solution.
The challenge for these entities is their business model. In short, altering the structure of social media kills it. These are really just advertising platforms. The goal is to get users on-board and track all they do in an effort to monetize the data.
Decentralized entities work in an entirely different way. They might be able to do some things in the back end to protect the data but they still run into problems with having to "police" the network. At some point, some group is going to get upset by the action which will affect the advertising dollars. Facebook is already in the middle of a backlash.
Their ties to Wall Street make it very difficult to tangent to another business model. Wall Street does not have patience when it comes to payouts. Everyone operates on a 90 day cycles these days. Making the decision to approach things in a different manner ends up causes carnage in the stock. This takes on added pressure when the shift being made is to an unknown system.
For a long time I believe in Hive simply because decentralization is our future. Not only of social media but most things related to the technological and digital worlds. We already see projects that are looking to decentralize AI and quantum computers. There are many people who realize that as bad as social media is in the hands of a few corporate giants, having those technologies in the same hands is even worse.
We live in a very fast moving world. Many presume that companies that are on top will always stay there. The reality is that we have never seen the ability to go from the penthouse to the basement is such a quick period of time. It is not uncommon for entities with major market share to be in bankruptcy court in under a decade.
There is no reason to believe that a company such as Twitter or Facebook could not follow the same path as Kodak, Blockbuster, or the newspapers.
Technology tends to change business models and companies that are forced to maintain one that is passe will find themselves in trouble.
We will see how long all this takes to play out but pressure is mounting.
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.
gif by @doze
Posted Using LeoFinance
