Careful with the Venture Capital route... I don't what this project ending up to be a potential 'buy and kill' by Venture Capitalists.
Image the 'little guy' with a potentially 'giant killer' idea using UNA.IO that threatens the established players... it would be easy to 'buy and kill' the UNA.IO script. The initial venture capital company may promise not to ' buy and kill' the project but with time another company can scoop up the initial buyer and then do the 'buy and kill.'
This being said,... we all have a price. It's just a matter of how expensive we are to consider selling out...., right? ; )
Well, reading the comments, I thought exactly what Simon wrote. In other words, Facebook is not evil, it is just a consequence, that of a much deeper evil that destroys everything it touches. Admittedly, Facebook attract our eyes and our ears because it is very visible, but let's admit that tomorrow it does not exist anymore, what have you solved? Nothing, or not much. You will have cut a fingernail of the devil, it will take little time to repel, elsewhere, under another name, another form. Admittedly, I'm not saying that we should not fight, on the contrary, but I think we need to see more broadly, not focus on Facebook, but rather use our tools to raise awareness about conditions that allow Facebook to exist, so do not fight against the consequences but we attack the causes. And there, Simon is right, the cause it is simple is that everything at a price. Would I remain holy and retain my values if tomorrow I have Zuckerberg's fortune? Do you know that Jeff Bezos dreams of putting several billion humans in orbit around the earth? Nice !!! Well what do you know? Frankly, I do not want to try the experiment. Look everywhere around you, wherever evil is, the common denominator of all our problems, including and especially the climate, is always the same, the massive money. Oh, involuntary slip from me, it's not even massive money anymore, it's just just a series of numbers aligned on a screen, so it's even worse! So, I think that if we target Facebook, we make a mistake, even if it gives nausea, I agree. I'll stop there, there's too much to say, just add one last thing, what we do here in this post is simply politics. If we do not deal with politics, it is politics that deals with us and we see the consequences all the time and everywhere. Well I think I have the only dating site in the world where we do politics, and all the time. in a way, the meeting is like a pretext, note that politics is also a pretext for the meeting. Members are always surprised at first seeing these two things side by side, they quickly understand the utility and consistency, and more and more they participate. it's just my way of fighting, there are many others. sorry if I did a little long, I'm talkative. :-)
I agree wholeheartedly about looking broader and not concentrating on Facebook or any one particular manifestation of rampant greed like that. In a way I see this situation as an opportunity to bugfix the system. See, Facebook case is a good example of abject failure of modern societal structures. It’s also big enough and impactful enough to be worth undoing (at least one fingernail off the devil). Though it may be a better look if we present the argument with abstraction...
The greatest value of Internet is a function of the global community framework, which is meant to be universally accessible and distributed. A person can be limited by the framework of their country policies, family or physical situation, their job constraints, you name it. At the same point we have this parallel universe which has (had?) the architecture allowing for close to equal opportunity for everyone. Learn, communicate, build, work, lead - it’s all there. Now, we have a global Internet entity that creates a walled garden where narratives are determined by ONE person, who repeatedly demonstrates malicious motives. The value they create for the community is not that great - most of it comes from the scale of our own commitment to it. In other words it’s a classic cases of runaway inequality where the entity on top end of distribution just rides the wave of exponential growth, simultaneously depressing other entities towards the bottom. That’s normal and is how natural phenomena work in general - avalanches, locust infestations, droughts, even energy distribution in cosmic bodies. Inequality tendencies tend to exponentially accelerate growth when they have a self-reinforcement property.
For humanity to strive we must work towards achieving a state of harmony. Not equality, god forbid, but a state of equilibrium where humans actively seek and fulfill responsibilities, get rewarded proportionally to their effort and maintain dignity. We recognised long ago that monopolies must be controlled, that bottom-end should be supported and that individuals are invariably fallible. So, we largely got rid of kings, we detest totalitarianism and try to create systems that check power balances.
Whatever happened to the Internet then? Why do we allow a system to exist where one person can dictate what 90% of adult population gets to see, say and know? It’s a functional global monopoly with immoral agenda.
Ideally I’d like to see Facebook thrive (even if just to continue supporting React), so that whoever comes after could strive and build great thing too. But it has to be done with checks and balances that ensure that their positive impact is maximised and negative minimised. At the moment one way to rally people and authorities is to point finger toward harmful effects of Facebook proliferation.