One thing's for sure, no one's solving this problem by traditional means.

The only pattern in this space is that the future will be unexpected

Normally I’d get pissed but somehow im not surprised

The gun issue has been a consistent failure for democrats, so I think they'll ignore it for the near future. They need to rebuild their permanent majority project before they can turn back to banning guns.

Retrospectively, it'll be something that solves real problems with incumbent services not for people already using them, but for the people who aren't

If Hillary had won they would've pressed ahead regardless, but thank god she didn't.

There was a time when AOL was the shit and many were seriously concerned about its power

10 years later, everybody's forgotten about it

@RekItRalph the year the world went upside down is 2003

If anything is going to take over Facebook it is going to be a service that offers decentralized content hosting

The problems we had with AOL are still replicated in Facebook

I disagree. You have to have something that the normal people would like.

The problem with AOL was that it was overpriced.

Also, what's the Stanford Geospatial Center have to do with any of this?

They documented the rise in mass shootings

There's also a serious possibility it implodes on itself due to the constant weakening of internet advertisement

How many people would actually _pay_ to use FB or Twitter?

Basically none. Which is a key element I hadn't thought of yet when people talk of making replacements.

People would pay a bit if given no option (think phone service). But Facebook as a whole would be replaced by something cheaper.

You won't out price FB by any means and most people don't care that much about ads.

You won’t receive that many adds if you have good browser extensions and you keep your feed clean. If everyone did what they were supposed to then they would lose an insane amount of cash

So I found out the rate isn’t rising for shootings but the death toll is. All due to the type of shooting. By definition, only 4 people need to die in order to qualify.

From what I've seen from the west and far left activists i propose California's name be changed to Commifornia.

I’ll refer back to the revenge and renoune theory regarding increased food prices. The shooter wants to kill as many people as possible rather than just specific individuals.

Generally these type of shooters are very quite beta males who never lived up to high expectations for men so they attempt to reclaim that through this idea of war glory

Men used to be able to support a family and a comfortable living but that expectation is too high in today’s economy. Men who do live up to this expectation claim that their success is through merit but 99% have all the key advantages

I would argue that if we are to reduce these murders, we need to resolve income inequality and improve gender equality. For both men and women.

Nerdy, so many of the shooters were children who weren't even responsible for putting food on the table. I'm not sure your hypothesis works for the indigenous school shooter. And Pulse was religiously inspired as was the Charleston church shooting.

Radical Islam and Radical Christianity

I don't see how anyone who has gone through school wouldn't at least think of shooting up a school at least once.

It's the classic soft target. But again, most of the school shootings are indigenous to that school. Just like most of the workplace shootings were indigenous to that workplace.

They call it "going postal" for a reason

Mass shootings arn’t exclusive to schools.

Calling it a mass shooting cuts out other mass attacks like mass stabbings and Truck of Peace visits.

I don’t think mass stabbings are a thing

No shooting are not unique to schools. As I said, workplace and hospital shooters.

>shooters dont attack affluent highschools and colleges

If they are then they arn’t as common

How many people have to be stabbed for it to be mass?

4... I imagine

That’s the criteria for gun violence