Follow

Remember folks, if you abandon Twitter, Facebook or Google, it's not a boycott, it's a STRIKE.

Because you're the [unpaid] workers that earn them billions of dollars in capital.

When you don't post, they don't get the benefit of your labour. And when you don't use, they lose money.

Social Media STRIKE days should be a thing.

@photopuck So the irTerms of Use are basically a work contract? :P

@photopuck This worked for Wikipedia. People went on strike early in Wikipedia's history, and it was forced to be a non-profit when Wales intended for it to be a for-profit venture.

@abbenm @photopuck
Yes. I have a chapter in my book, Reverse Engineering Social Media, about it. Nate Tkacz has written about it. It involved the Spanish-language Wikipedia.

@photopuck @abbenm They explicitly referred to it as a strike. At the time, the address was wikipedia.com -- as in commercial venture -- not wikipedia.org, as it is today.

@robertwgehl @photopuck Woah, that is fascinating.

It was always peculiar to me that a self professed libertarian (an objectivist even!) had such a deeply altruistic perspective about how wikipedia ought to be run.

I guess I'll have to read your book to know the full story.

@abbenm @photopuck You're certainly welcome to buy the book, but I am pretty sure there are pirated copies online, wink wink nudge nudge.

The central person was named Edgar Enyedy, who led a strike when Larry Sanger hinted WP was going to start selling ad space. Enyedy and comrades took the entire Spanish language WP to another server. This was when WP was first going international, so it was vulnerable.

@Elizafox @photopuck @robertwgehl This definitely explains a lot about Wikia as "Actually by the wikipedia people, but for profit and shittier"

@photopuck That's not quite right. The profits made by large social media are based on viewership, not content creation. So in order to be effective, your "social media STRIKE days" should be defined by not logging in at all. Don't give them your traffic. Simply not posting new content isn't that harmful to them if you're still reading your feed.

@photopuck I'd argue that you *are* paid for your posts, personal data and attention span by being given free access to very convenient services.

@lertsenem @photopuck
*in exchange for access to convenient services

It's not free if you're paying for it.

/pedant

@ultimape @photopuck I've been thinking about this same point lately as that social networks are really just owned and designed marketplaces (the malls in your discussion). The notion that one is not "paid" for using them is strangely off-point, as payment is merely compensation for someone's bearing of costs, and people are compensated (though maybe not enough) for the costs that they bear as a result of interacting with the marketplace (by way of being provided dope content).

@photopuck It's not a strike. You're not an employee, you're a product.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Follow friends and discover new ones. Publish anything you want: links, pictures, text, video. This server is run by the main developers of the Mastodon project. Everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!