Live data from Hacker News

Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

zdnet.com

201–210 of 587 posts

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#201

"Since all content on the platform can be edited or deleted by other users, he believes there's a good incentive for good behavior by users." There is zero chance this policy survives having a million+ users intact.

Yes, as the wiki model is in despair.

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#202
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you go to a open alternative like Mastodon instead to yet another silo?

I was on Mastodon for more than a year and loved it: great conversation that reminded me of the hope and promise of the Internet in the late 90's. Then my instance admin went AWOL, the site crashed, and all of my data and social graph were lost. I still can't get the admin to respond to emails. I could host my own server but who really has the technical know-how and time to do that kind of work? Mastodon has got to s…

Yeah part of the problem with Mastodon is trusting that you're instance will stick around. The only ways I can think to do that are:

1. Host it yourself

2. Use one of the paid instances backed by an established company (I use Librem Social)

Perhaps over time some ad supported Mastodon instances will pop up for those willing to pay that way.

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#203
post #115
post #44

Why so much money? At scale, nowhere near $12.99 / month is needed.

i think it could actually work. a couple of messengers (slightly different product but still...) have tried offering good alternatives to whatsapp at a sensible price. It turns out, people aren't motivated to switch even if the price is low. When you make it expensive, otoh, it feels exclusive. After some reputation is built you can somewhat lower the price and perhaps many people are thrilled that they can join a ve…

Maybe it is not.

I am saying that amount of money is not necessary.

Different things.

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#205
post #194

This article is all over the place. It can't possibly be that everyone is expected to pay around $10 a month because: 1. Obviously almost nobody is going to be prepared to pay that, and 2. He wouldn't be talking about it not making a profit and having bare-bones staff if every one of a predicted 50-500 million users was going to paying that amount, just to run a social network, because he'd need an army of staff just…

I got an early invite because I donated to WikiTribune; I'm not sure if that meant I skipped some payment sign-up page, but I wasn't required to pay anything to obtain access wt.social.

That settles that then, thank you. So what's it like on the inside, worth queuing for?

I am intrigued. It's a terribly clunky name mind.

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#206
It might be worth mentioning that Wikipedia spent several million on creating a more trustworthy search engine without anything to show for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(Wikimedia_Fo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/S...

I have serious doubts of this particular endeavor's success with statements like these:

"The business model of social-media companies, of pure advertising, is problematic," Wales told the publication.

"It turns out the huge winner is low-quality content," he added.

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#207

"Since all content on the platform can be edited or deleted by other users, he believes there's a good incentive for good behavior by users." There is zero chance this policy survives having a million+ users intact.

It will become power users controlling the narrative. Sort of like how edits and that approval process on wikipedia operate right now.

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#208
post #62

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…

> showed the price to jump the waitlist ... as $12.99 a month or $100 a year. Yeah, not a big fan of this. You could buy very nice cloud hosting for $12.99 a month, and run your own instance of a federated social network like Mastodon.

Or join an existing social network with a billion plus users.

Google+, now's your time to shine!

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#209
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got an early invite because I donated to WikiTribune; I'm not sure if that meant I skipped some payment sign-up page, but I wasn't required to pay anything to obtain access wt.social.

That settles that then, thank you. So what's it like on the inside, worth queuing for? I am intrigued. It's a terribly clunky name mind.

It looks a bit like Facebook: a central column with your "feed" (which is populated with articles from a bunch of interests - "subwikis" - that you choose when you get in for the first time), a left column with other groups you might be interested in joining, and a right column with invite links for your friends, a list of your current groups, and recent changes. There's a bar at the top with notifications and search.

Re: Jimmy Wales has quietly launched a Facebook rival

#210
Previously someone mentioned the idea of a $1/mo. social network.

I think if someone were to make facebook in it's first ~2 years and keep it very basic it we would be good to go. The only features you need are: a profile picture, a wall, chat, and events.

In other words - a photo of yourself, a way of publicly messaging, a way of privately messaging, and a way to coordinate social events.

What else do you need for a 'social network?'

I would pay $1/mo for that. The simpler the better.

Post reply on HN