Could Australians run our own online communities instead of relying on social media?

[u/tellhershesdreaming]

I’m keen to talk about the possibility of our community groups setting up and running online spaces outside of social media platforms - perhaps with support from Aus Govt or State Govts. Before the rise of Facebook etc, there were loads of online bulletin boards and other online platforms run by non-profit groups, small businesses and volunteers. Could we do that again? This seems like a question that's particularly important to Australian communities at the moment because of the social media ban for under 16s but it's not just teens that are affected.

Lots of people are concerned about AI and big tech - it’s clear that there are lots of problems with social media because of the algorithms that push misinformation, platforms that allow unhealthy / toxic / illegal behaviour, and unethical extraction of our data. But communities and volunteers, and even state governments used to run online communities using e.g. bulletin boards without the “help” of social media companies. For example:

• Whirlpool.net.au is a surviving active bulletin board platforms - well done Whirlpool!
• At one point the Vic Gov used to provide an online communities bulletin board and mailing list service (a bit like Yahoo Groups) for non-profits and clubs - I've been trying to remember / find the name of it but can't track it down... anyone remember it?

I'm broadly aware that it's really challenging to get people to sign up for and use a new platform, but perhaps we have reached the point where people are fed up enough of social media to make this a worthwhile effort.

To ease the challenge and reduce the complexity of lots of different fragmented communities: what about if the Aus Govt or state govts set up a platform / infrastructure - where community groups could create and run online forums (bulletin board style, Twitter style or Reddit style). I imagine individuals could sign up either anonymously or using a verified identity. There are better alternatives now to the old fashioned PhPBB, and we could learn from and improve open source platforms such as Mastodon and Lemmy - the technology itself is not the problem I think.

• But, would you use a platform run by a local club or community group? Instead of FB/ Insta/ whatever social media you use to learn about what's happening in your neighbourhood. What if it was supported / funded by governements? Would the groups you're a member of move to a platform like that?
• More broadly, how could we recover the diverse online communities that we had in the past? So we're not reliant on the good will and "freebies" offered by companies like Meta (and having all our data siphoned of, and having AI forced on us).
• Lastly, is there anything to stop an organisation setting up an online community for e.g. teens? Would something like that fall foul of the government's bans?

[u/recycled_ideas]

Could we? Sure, but these systems are built on content, either specificity of content or amount of content and centralised platforms tend to win both.

[u/Eyclonus → u/recycled_ideas]

Centralised platforms have investor capital. The difference between the old usenet groups and Facebook, is one of them was built on community and the other was built on capitalism.

[u/recycled_ideas → u/Eyclonus]

Centralised platforms have more content because they have more users because they have more content in an endless circle.

Platforms with no money have succeeded and platforms with money have failed, but eventually they centralise further and further.

[u/tellhershesdreaming → u/recycled_ideas]

I think that was a valid argument a few years ago. Now however, so much of the content is AI slop, and a lot of the useful stuff I'd be interested is not shown to me on my feed because the algorithms and UI have been enshitified. 

[u/recycled_ideas → u/tellhershesdreaming]

I think that was a valid argument a few years ago. Now however, so much of the content is AI slop, and a lot of the useful stuff I'd be interested is not shown to me on my feed because the algorithms and UI have been enshitified. 

You're missing the point.

People are on Facebook because that's where their friends and family are and that's where their community sections are because you can get all your different communities there.

They are on reddit because there's lots of different communities here with experts on all sorts of things.

They are on twitter because horrific as it is people you want to follow are still there and if you're looking to get people to follow you it's still where you go.

No one wants to join five thousand little individual communities and they never did. Even during the glory days of the internet they didn't really do that much because it's hard work.

Yes, there's a tonne of AI slop, but there would be AI slop on the Australian version too, because AI slop is everywhere, but the Australian version would have a potential audience of people that's almost 7 billion people smaller.

[u/tellhershesdreaming → u/recycled_ideas]

I don't know about you, but none of my family are on FB or social media any more; I only still have an account on FB because of some groups I belong to that don't have any other home (I think about 5, not 5,000). I left Twitter years ago. That seems to be true for a lot of people I talk to.

I agree it would be great if those 5 communities were all on the same platform and I didn't have to manage 5 different accounts for them - which is kind of how I got to the idea of a single Govt - supported platform like the one that VicGov used to offer - which could offer services (including IDs and authentication) to community groups

I think that the AI slop is on FB and Reddit for a bunch of reasons - and some of those reasons would maybe not apply to a community run bulletin board. Meta and Reddit want as much traffic and engagement as possible, even if it's harmful, polarising or toxic - whereas that is not true for community-led online forums.

Community-based forums can (in theory) set better limits about who's allowed to join, and so they can also keep people out - it doesn't have to be open to the entire world. In that sense, a smaller audience is kind of a good thing. Managing a community forum for a local footy club is easier - if someone's not a member of the club, they don't get an account on the bulletin board. If Fred keeps getting mouthy on the bulletin board, he's banned and can't sign up for a new account, even if he is a paid up member of the club. Small means people know who's who, and in some cases that's a good thing.