Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The real anti-Facebook is good old email

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#121

Post by pjbrunet »

jseliger wrote: post #95
copsarebastards wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diaspora was written by a bunch of college students who were unqualified to be implementing the security protocols necessary. Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go. The fact that Diaspora failed at implementing this idea doesn't mean that the idea is bad.

Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go I'm not convinced that anyone apart from readers of Hacker News and Reddit wants to move off Facebook. Discussions about the problems of FB on HN remind me of 2000s-era Slashdot discussions of why Linux is better than Windows and is poised to takeover the desktop: A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that h…

"A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that has little relevance relative to the huge number of everyday users out there."

Linux did take over Windows. You realize Android is Linux, right? That's 80% of the mobile market right here https://twitter.com/BIIntelligence/status/605748823709859840... And now Microsoft is building Android apps. So that tiny, passionate minority was right ;-)

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#122

Post by chrismartin »

krick wrote: post #120
Tideflat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that email doesn't depend on Google to exist, and leaving Gmail isn't all that bad. They even support email forwarding, so that you wouldn't loose contact with people that only have your old email: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10957?hl=en

Are you joking or what? I, personally, don't use gmail, that's not the problem. The problem is everyone else does. And have you ever (in last 5 years or so) tried using your personal email server to communicate with them? I'm guessing you have not, because otherwise you would know how painful it is, as Google does everything to make it painful as hell. Large portion of my contact list are gmail users, especially that…

I have a very different experience, having run my own email server for the past few months with no trouble communicating with many others on Gmail. Is your SMTP server on a blacklist or something?

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#123

Post by pjbrunet »

I was saving up this idea, but here's how you could disrupt Facebook. This is already happening, but it could be automated.

In short, automatically DELAY posting to Facebook. Let everybody know at the bottom of all content: This was published first at example.com and released to social media (Facebook) after X hours.

Make Facebook look antiquated like a newspaper. Let everyone know, Facebook is the old news. If you want our latest news, you have to sign up for the email list--you must to go to example.com for the LATEST news.

One way I'm thinking this could work with a WordPress plugin, when the publisher schedules a post, the post would be "locked" from view with a countdown timer. "This content unlocks in 6 hours. To unlock this content now, and to get our content before everyone else, sign up for our email list."

Maybe for really time-sensitive info you could have three tiers. A paid tier (instant release) and a free tier (unlocked 1 hour later) and a social media tier (unlocked 6 hours later.)

Essentially, you're taking advantage of the value of time, automatically. For example, if shampoo is on sale and you're 1 hour late, maybe the shelf is cleared out.

But you don't necessarily need a paid tier, because the publisher is a) getting more traffic to example.com, pulling traffic off Facebook and b) getting more email subscribers.

Publishers do implement this on their own, but I think it would work well as a WordPress plugin or as some kind of paid service if it was slick enough.

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#125

Post by pjbrunet »

copsarebastards wrote: post #73
cortesoft wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what diaspora tried to do. It has not gone well.

Diaspora was written by a bunch of college students who were unqualified to be implementing the security protocols necessary. Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go. The fact that Diaspora failed at implementing this idea doesn't mean that the idea is bad.

Another reason it failed, they used Ruby--which at the time was a pain in the ass to install. (Would not install on 99.9% of shared hosts and VPS was still a new thing.)

I've said it before, I'm pretty sure it would work if it was built on top of WordPress. I'm sure this idea is in the back of Matt Mullenweg's mind somewhere. Gravatar has profiles now, but where is that going...?

Well, I shouldn't say it failed. I don't know. A few years ago I was out somewhere, can't remember the conversation, but this guy was telling me the Diaspora community is still growing and people are actually using it.

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#126

Post by pjbrunet »

narrowrail wrote: post #76
aws_ls wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I think, it takes Facebook (the current monopoly) to do the right thing. If they open the other required things will automatically happen. G+ will become an attractive option once again, for people who like that interface. And HN types will implement their own 'social' protocol, and self host.

While I sympathize with the gist of your sentiments: What's in it for FB? Nobody (outside of an HN-type crowd) wants to self-host anything, nor do they know what that means. The 30 yr old+ folks without any technical knowledge think FB is great and see no reason anything should change. You are basically calling for FB to reduce their monopoly to satisfy 0.01% of their addressable market. I believe the force that will…

I wouldn't assume 30+ folks don't care. We have been online since the 90s (at least) and we've seen some bad shit in our lifetime. An interesting survey would be: Are you "creeped out" by Facebook? Try that survey on Facebook (if it doesn't get blocked) and see how that goes ;-)

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#127

Post by nickpsecurity »

pjbrunet wrote: post #121
jseliger wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that one of the biggest reasons people want to move off Facebook is security, that's a no-go I'm not convinced that anyone apart from readers of Hacker News and Reddit wants to move off Facebook. Discussions about the problems of FB on HN remind me of 2000s-era Slashdot discussions of why Linux is better than Windows and is poised to takeover the desktop: A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that h…

"A popular subject for a tiny, passionate minority that has little relevance relative to the huge number of everyday users out there." Linux did take over Windows. You realize Android is Linux, right? That's 80% of the mobile market right here https://twitter.com/BIIntelligence/status/605748823709859840... And now Microsoft is building Android apps. So that tiny, passionate minority was right ;-)

Linux didn't take over Windows: it took over much of the server space and a specific form of it dominated mobile. Windows still dominates the desktop space as the commenter clearly meant. Further, a single company and product line has been holding its own against Android with profits that made Microsoft and IBM look poor.

In the end, all the volunteers and paid programmers combined working on Linux couldn't displace Windows as king. And all kinds of companies working together got Android to 80% of the market with Apple getting 50% of market's profit. I wouldn't be bragging in either of those two niches. Cloud, on the other hand? Slam dunk.

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#128

Post by nickpsecurity »

meeper16 wrote: post #9

Facebook = AOL 2.0.1. Maybe they'll do a merger more valuable than AOLs merger of $350 billion, maybe not: http://www.fastcompany.com/3046213/verizon-aol Facebook is what you get when you have a founder that cuts and pastes myspace code to voyeristically spy on girls he can't get while holding a business card that says "I'm CEO bitch" while calling his users "dumb fucks". Worse than the next AOL 2.0.1 The past Prodig…

Google's an exception to almost every rule. And that exception started with their patented Page Rank algorithm. Patents on important stuff forcing users to pony up isn't exceptional, though. So, they can't be used as an example except for what brains + patents + critical tech can earn you.

Re: The real anti-Facebook is good old email

#130

Post by [deleted] »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #71
aws_ls wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I think, it takes Facebook (the current monopoly) to do the right thing. If they open the other required things will automatically happen. G+ will become an attractive option once again, for people who like that interface. And HN types will implement their own 'social' protocol, and self host.

Fab ook are not gonna do the right thing. They're gonna try to maximize their profits.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN