Social Media Alternatives Multiple Qanon's messages shared information and asked questions about Facebook, YouTube, Twitter allegedly abused your privacy and your personal data? Here are a few of Qanon's messages: • Facebook #2988, #1102 • Twitter #2880, #1102 • Youtube #2371, #839 Are you facing a challenge with abuse of your privacy, abuse of your personal data, abuse with censorship on Facebook or YouTube or Twitter? How to resolve this challenge? Find a few suggested resolutions below for your review for interest. Four suggested alternatives to choose from below. Compare to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, those alternatives are all more secure and have stronger privacy. Because those alternatives software code is open source. Meaning it can be review by the public :) Details & reviews below. About the four suggested resolutions to choose from. Homepage: https://hubzilla.org Try it: https://demo.hubzilla.org Good • Fully free • Strong privacy(b) • No risk of censorship(a) • Strong security(b) • No risk of interference and abuses by investors(a) • Decentralized(c) • Cross-posting(d) Bad • Slow start. You need hours or days for the initial learning curve. • For advanced social media users. Harder to use. Homepage: https://friendi.ca Try it: http://dir.friendica.social/servers Good • Fully free • Strong privacy(b) • No risk of censorship(a) • Strong security(b) • No risk of interference and abuses by investors(a) • Decentralized(c) • Cross-posting(d) Bad • Slow start. You need hours or days for the initial learning curve. • For advanced social media users. Harder to use. Homepage: https://diasporafoundation.org Try it: https://diasporafoundation.org/#get_started Good • Fully free • Strong privacy(b) • No risk of censorship(a) • Strong security(b) • No risk of interference and abuses by investors(a) • Decentralized(c) • Cross-posting(d) Bad • Slow start. You need hours or days for the initial learning curve. • For advanced social media users. Harder to use. Homepage: https://www.minds.com Try it: https://www.minds.com Good • Quick start. You need minutes for the initial learning curve. • Easy to use. For newcomer to social media users. • Strong privacy(b) • Medium risk of censorship(a) • Medium security(b) Bad • Some features are paid(a) • Medium risk of interference and abuses by investors(a) • Centralized(c) • Some features are paid(a) Find the meaning of the superscript letters (a), (b), (c) below. Under the "Legend" section. If you are not familiar with the term "community-owned" code, in summary it means the software is owned by either a NOT-for-profit organization or a NOT-for-profit community. In other words, the primary goal of the not-for-profit owner is to serve your interests. Compare to a for-profit organization where the primary goal of the owner is to serve the interests of their investors. If the software code is owned by a not-for-profit organization or community, it is MORE secure, and a LOWER risk of abuse. For-profit organization's potential abuses such as, but not limited to, collecting and or selling your private data for profit. Without your approval. As well as censorship. If you are not familiar with "open source" software, in summary it means the software is MORE secure. Because its code is publicly available for review and contributions. In other words, there is a LOWER risk of abuse. For-profit organization's potential abuses such as, but not limited to, collecting and or selling your private data for profit. Without your approval. If you are not familiar with "decentralized" social media, in summary it means the social media software is hosted on a decentralized network. Instead of a centralized network. One risk with a centralized software is its central point of failure and its very high risk of abuse with your privacy and or personal data Most social networks are run from centralized servers owned by a for-profit organization. In turn, this means they store all your private data in one single location. This centralized information can be lost, or hacked, or abuse, and like any software with a bottleneck, any problem at the central servers can make the whole centralized network run very slowly, or not at all. Depending on the physical location of the centralized servers, it is also more easy for for-profit organization, or for governments, or for agencies to “listen in” and spy on your private life and data. Thus abuse. Minds.com repeatedly claimed to be a decentralized social media. But their claims are MISLEADING and FALSE. Because the minds.com social media is presently hosted on a centralized network. And multiple installation of Minds.com social media are NOT yet able to communicate with each others. On the other hand, minds.com claim to have an "intention" of being decentralized and allow multiple minds.com social media to communicate with each other. In other words, minds.com could be really decentralized social media if they had the real will to. But right now their are not a decentralized social media. Compare to hubzilla.org and friendi.ca who are both really fully decentralized social media. I am assuming that minds did their claims in good faith. Maybe they do not yet have a solid understanding of centralized versus decentralized social medias. In summary I suggest to use hubzilla.org or friendi.ca or diasporafoundation.org or minds.com to cross-post your content to other social medias. Details below. If you are not familiar with the "cross-posting" term, it means a post you do on one social media is optionally and automatically reposted to another social media(s). For example, you post your blog to Hubzilla.org , then you are able to easily, and quickly repost it to another social media(s) such as Facebook or Twitter and so on. One of the benefits of cross-posting is that when Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube somehow censor, or abuse your content, your audience is still able to access your original post on either Hubzilla.org or another social media you cross-posted to. Because it is hosted on another social media(s). Which is independent from Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube's censorship and abuses. In other words, a lower risk of censorship and abuse. With redundancy. Homepage: http://facebook.com Good • Quick start. You need minutes for the initial learning curve. • Easy to use Bad • Some features are paid(a) • Weak privacy(b) Allegedly unethically or illegally resell your data for profit. Allegedly unethically or illegally “listen in” and spy on your private life and data. Without your approval and or without your full knowledge. ___• Source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6812853/WhatsApp-founder-warns-world-delete-Facebook-immediately.html ______• http://archive.fo/CFYNi • High risk of censorship(a) Allegedly unethically censors point of views the Facebook team or their investors disagree with. • Weak security(b) Allegedly compromised large amount of users' data. Via resell your data for profit, vulnerable apps, etc. ___• Source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6812853/WhatsApp-founder-warns-world-delete-Facebook-immediately.html ______• http://archive.fo/CFYNi • High risk of interference and abuses by investors(a) ___• Source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6812853/WhatsApp-founder-warns-world-delete-Facebook-immediately.html ______• http://archive.fo/CFYNi • Centralized(c) • No easy and quick cross-posting(d) After I tried Minds.com I financially invested in it Speaking for myself, as volunteer, not on behalf of any organization, my preferred alternatives are in this order top-down: