81–90 of 587 posts
I also think social + news will just lead to you getting stuck in a bubble of news content your social group agrees with.
I could go on forever but the point is it doesn't even get the basics right. If you're interested in how one builds a successful social network check Nikita's tweets (sold TBH to Facebook 2 years ago for $100M) https://twitter.com/nikitabier
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a fairly large network of friends that existed before FB really had wide adoption. The platform they were on eventually died in favor of facebook. At this point, I'd like to preserve that network of friends independent of facebook and most of those folks feel similarly. In that sense, there is at least some demand for a social network that isn't evil.
I feel the same. I find social networks pretty valuable but don't like or trust Facebook. I'd happily sign up (and pay for) a social network that brought the same benefits but was (1.) ad-free and (2.) didn't employ tons of people trying to maximize my engagement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds good in theory, but that is so far removed from what 99% of social media users do. Nobody wants to rent/buy boxes, handle routers, etc. ; most users are on mobile, on the go.
Well the idea is they plug the box in at home, and the box is the server that contains all their shared data (photos, etc.) and lets them control how it's shared with others. Sure, they can access it from their phone, but the phone wouldn't be the server. The whole idea is that each user has control over their own data, instead of just handing it over to some big tech company.
I would prefer a decentralized social network based on boxes you plug into your router with content shared in a way that fellow users bear the weight of shared content like torrents. You could rent the box or buy outright with money to develop paid for by a premium on the box or by the rent wherein even a modest rent would outstrip the cost of buying like a cable box.
This is the worst attempt I've ever seen at building a social network. 3 out of 4 of the major social networks were started by 20-22yos, 4 out of 4 were initially for teens only, 3 out of 3 in the last 10 years were mobile-only, ios-only I could go on forever but the point is it doesn't even get the basics right. If you're interested in how one builds a successful social network check Nikita's tweets (sold TBH to Fac…
I would prefer a decentralized social network based on boxes you plug into your router with content shared in a way that fellow users bear the weight of shared content like torrents. You could rent the box or buy outright with money to develop paid for by a premium on the box or by the rent wherein even a modest rent would outstrip the cost of buying like a cable box.
Sounds good in theory, but that is so far removed from what 99% of social media users do. Nobody wants to rent/buy boxes, handle routers, etc. ; most users are on mobile, on the go.
Just my guess, but I bet that from this point on, few people (in the developed world) will race to sign up for a new social network. Why? Given the societal and personal costs (and benefits) that we've seen with previous social networks, a lot of lay people are re-evaluating the utility that such services provide them. In many cases, the answer is to keep your current social network, but increasingly disengage from i…
There is an exception to this. A lot of people race to sign up on new networks to secure valuable and limited usernames or urls early in case the network does become a big deal someday.
Whatever one might think about social network "influencers", their influence is ultimately rooted in something about them (looks, charisma, knowledge, marketing dept strategy), not their username.
I would prefer a decentralized social network based on boxes you plug into your router with content shared in a way that fellow users bear the weight of shared content like torrents. You could rent the box or buy outright with money to develop paid for by a premium on the box or by the rent wherein even a modest rent would outstrip the cost of buying like a cable box.
That’s essentially what a Mastadon instance is. If it’s hosted at home or on someone’s cloud account - the difference is only in connectivity speed. I’m extremely hopefully, perhaps naively, that a new internet isn’t going to be based on blockchain or owning data or any foundational change - it will be based on the ability for people to host their own server-side software again. The App Stores democratized client sid…
Sandstorm tried this, and they got very very far.
I think it was ingenious, but the sysadmin in me was very skeptical about the HA/scaling story (there was none). I guess it's fine for self-hosting for yourself&friends, but there should be an easy way forward - after all, Kubernetes commoditised clustering (I mean - once you're past setup).
Where can I follow your efforts? You mention KubeSail in your profile, but that seems developer-oriented?
I checked it out by creating an account. It detected my country as India, and showed the price to jump the waitlist (currently at 60k) as $12.99 a month or $100 a year. Contrast this to (using current conversion rates from INR to USD): * Netflix here starts at $2.8 for the cheapest (mobile only, single screen) plan and has its highest plan (4K, four screens) at $11.2 a month. Netflix is considered so expensive that a…
Perfect great!
Imagine it’s intentional and a pretty effective way of doing business
Now lets just critique why it isn’t a luxury brand