Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
T_X (t_x@chaos.social)'s status on Sunday, 15-Dec-2024 03:32:53 JST T_X
in reply to
And the @netzpolitik_feed article by @markusreuter (in German) is this one on the #Twitter / #X exodus (though I think they mixed up exponential vs. squared growth, hopefully they'll correct it):
https://netzpolitik.org/2024/stirb-langsam-warum-es-mit-x-nun-zu-ende-geht/
Title: "Die slowly / Die hard - Why X is coming to an end".
This article also mentions the #Enshittification term coined by @pluralistic as one reason for the #Xodus.
In conversation about 2 months ago from chaos.social permalink
Attachments
1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: cdn.netzpolitik.org
  
  Warum es mit X nun zu Ende geht
  
  from Markus Reuter
  
  Soziale Netzwerke sind wegen des Netzwerkeffekts nur schwer totzukriegen. Doch dem Twitter-Nachfolger X von Elon Musk droht nun genau das. Wie konnte das passieren? Welche Plattformen könnten die Nachfolge antreten? Eine Analyse über Aufstieg und Fall sozialer Netzwerke.
- Embed this notice
  T_X (t_x@chaos.social)'s status on Sunday, 15-Dec-2024 03:32:55 JST T_X
  - Netzpolitik-Feed with benefits
  Have heard of Metcalfe's law and Reed's law for the first time thanks to a @netzpolitik_feed article. Which reaffirms my believe + efforts to get #multicast routing between #Freifunk communities working.
  The Metalcafe's law says a network grows by value/importance proportional to the square and had a classic telephone network in mind.
  For multicast I think Reed's law seems more fitting, which considers all potential subgroups, with an exponential value/importance.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%27s_law
  In conversation about 2 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    Reed's law
    
    Reed's law is the assertion of David P. Reed that the utility of large networks, particularly social networks, can scale exponentially with the size of the network. The reason for this is that the number of possible sub-groups of network participants is 2N − N − 1, where N is the number of participants. This grows much more rapidly than either the number of participants, N, or the number of possible pair connections, N(N − 1)/2 (which follows Metcalfe's law). so that even if the utility of groups available to be joined is very small on a per-group basis, eventually the network effect of potential group membership can dominate the overall economics of the system. Derivation Given a set A of N people, it has 2N possible subsets. This is not difficult to see, since we can form each possible subset by simply choosing for each element of A one of two possibilities: whether to include that element, or not. However, this includes the (one) empty set, and N singletons, which are not properly...
  Cory Doctorow repeated this.

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds