What would a social media *for humans* look like?

Mostly the same as in early 2010s, but without growth hacking.

But, the problem is every incremental internet user after that was worse, regardless of country.

And adding to that, excluding propaganda, junk content or repost profiles mainly originate from global south as human labor value is low and people are desperate for income. (Yeah, I know, controversial thought, but on IG you can check country of all these reposting profiles and much of them aren't from EU/US). And these locations got connected to the internet specifically during 2010s.

The ideas are good; you do require some sort of KYC; then these proven humans can still be bots but at least the supply is not infinite.

What I would like to see is a 'interest' timeline which does not just show me posts from people I follow, but only the posts that interest me and nothing else from those users (unless i click on User timeline); for instance; i only care about english and dutch posts, i only care about tech posts (a tech poster might have gone to taylor swift; I don't want to see that post as i don't give a rats ass). With AI's language skills, this should be fairly trivial.

The problem is, once you need to make money, you will show me stuff I don't want to see and then I will leave. Rather you just ask me for $/mo and never do that, but we see how that goes with existing networks....

WorldID is not the only way to KYC. I joined Proof of Humanity ages ago, and it was a very sound project. It lost its way a bit because of trying to do too many things, but the DAO was essentially sound. https://proofofhumanity.id/.

Have you tried Mastodon / Fediverse with no promotion algorithm based on engagement? It feels very different to Twitter even pre-Musk.

Also: I run an informational bot, which is why I was on Twitter until Musk turned all that access off. Not all bots are bad any more than all humans. Intent is important.

I've heard the idea tossed around - I forget where, I think a Mastodon instance - of limiting the number of users to keep the flood of new people from appearing.

It's not that hard to stop most bad actors on social networks. The key is wanting to. When volume of engagement matters more than quality, then you get what we have. Strong moderation and terms of service enforcement are a prerequisite for productive conversation. If you want to be a member of the Rotary Club in good standing, there are rules to follow, and you will be judged by leadership and your peers. But the worst anti-social behavior is, not just tolerated, but encouraged on most mainstream sites. People act as though all speech is equally valid and are unwilling to make basic moral or intellectual judgements. Until someone has the backbone to define what is acceptable, we'll remain in the woods.

For example, today on HN there was another long thread about homelessness. We had people claiming that Gavin Newsom gave out cash in the 90's. We had people claiming that most homeless people have given up looking for work due to mental illness. We had people claiming that people come from all over to San Francisco because of how much better it is to be homeless there. None remotely true.

Should these opinions be permitted in public forums? This is not a hard question. It's never acceptable to pollute the infosphere with disinformation, either intentional or inadvert. It's never acceptable to pontificate about things one has never bothered to understand. If you censor such hot takes, you open space for people who know something about the topic to weigh in.

What disturbs me is how obvious this conclusion is. We all control our friend circles to avoid problematic people, yet new social media initiatives are still free-for-alls in which nefarious actors and hidden hierarchies call the shots. We build sewers, then complain about the smell.

> same with likes: people are addicted to them; some base their self worth on them

The number of followers even more so, and sometimes also who the followers are.