301–310 of 399 posts
Look at Elgg https://elgg.org This social app framework has everything you need. Here are examples of what can be done with it: Twitter Clone - https://pw.wzm.me Marketplace - https://es.wzm.me Showcases and more - https://w.wzm.me Q&A - http://elgghacks.com Even a platform to create other apps - https://lab.wzm.me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google failing implies nothing about the tribal conceptualization of social networking.
> implies nothing Nothing is a strong word. A similar idea was tried, by one of the largest tech companies in the world, pushing it on to their already established user base, and it didn't catch on. Will it fail again? No idea, but it doesn't imply nothing .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
right, google plus failed bc it was a platform problem. Who would prefer to use that product over facebook, twitter, etc that duplicate the functionality 90%. ello was another hilarious example (that somehow... still exists...)
The thing is, Google+ had a dedicated user base. It just wasn't the Facebook killer they thought it would be. Same thing with Google Reader, too. If you want to "take on Facebook or Twitter", you will fail. But if you just want to create a community of people, you absolutely can outcompete those companies in that niche, because Facebook and Twitter traded in quality for scale.
Indeed. I really preferred Google+ to any of it's competitors. The circles idea just makes a lot of sense. Most other social media ignores the fact that people in your social circles might have different interests. People interested in programming languages might not be interested in baking and vice versa. Why spam all baking followers with your latest programming language realization?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook was similar, but you could throw sheep at your friend/girl you liked, and it might be ambiguous. Throwing sheep is an idiom I'm unfamiliar with and urban dictionary isn't helping ( https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=throw%20a%20... ) what does it mean in this context? I liked the idea of circles. It solves the problem of having to create multiple accounts (one for work, one for friends, one fo…
>Throwing sheep is an idiom I'm unfamiliar with He likely meant "throwing shade."
is it similar to "being pwned"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Financial and intellectual resources are being diverted to projects with large markets but low utility. Also, "product" is a semantic argument. Product also means sum. Every application is a product of technology.
Yeah, everything around us can be seen as a product. It’s all sausage factory across the board. The opinion I’m expressing here is that excessively seeing things in that way when venturing out to do them doesn’t make inspire trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, was also more annoying to use. it read trying to solve the problem of broadcasting everything to everyone, so it had this concept of circles, whereas Twitter people WANT everyone to see everything they say, either for like or conflict. Facebook was similar, but you could throw sheep at your friend/girl you liked, and it might be ambiguous. plus made you define your social circles as literal "circles", that's no…
> Facebook was similar, but you could throw sheep at your friend/girl you liked, and it might be ambiguous. Throwing sheep is an idiom I'm unfamiliar with and urban dictionary isn't helping ( https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=throw%20a%20... ) what does it mean in this context? I liked the idea of circles. It solves the problem of having to create multiple accounts (one for work, one for friends, one fo…
Circles are a significant part of that, but also 'hats'. A person wearing the Lego hat is distinct from the same person wearing the fantasy console fan hat. Circles and hats combine so that you have both control over the context of what you say and who you say it to. Circles should also have content types. Twitter, Tiktok, Instagram etc. are fundamentally the same thing with a different content type. It should be possible to have an underlying network to handle arbitrary content as blobs of data, and have the users define the circle content themselves. This may mean you need to download a custom program to view some circle types but if you are not in that circle you can safely ignore the type altogether.
The other aspect is discoverability. Algorithms boosting content are prone to abuse. I think there is scope for human curation in a social network context. We have all seen the obviously broken thing that a user has had no success at finding a remedy though 'official' channels, but once it becomes a trending issue on social media there is a prompt fix. Winning the trending lottery is how information gets to where it needs to be and like lotteries there are far more losers than winners.
I would like to see some sort of curation tree (or more likely feed forward network). Anyone can play the role of a curator and anyone can suggest things to any curator, but curators have the tools to filter and prioritize topics they care about and people they trust. Following curators gets you what you want, from cute cat pictures, to a list of Android Apps containing malware. A key aspect of this that makes it more network like than tree like is there should not be any topic overlord, there may be five Android Malware curators and a thousand cat pic curators. It should be possible to follow all of Android Malware #153 and anything that any three of the others agree on (or any other combination/weighting). As a user with a piece of information, you could just shout at the top of the tree (as may people without a sense of perspective might), which is why filtering is necessary, but in general it is better to tell someone lower down who receives a lower volume of notifications who can then use their judgement to feed information to other curators.
The curation model itself could be implemented within the scope of Circles and Hats with user interface design to suggest the curation model. To operate this it would require significant volunteer effort, but I think that can be achieved. Wikipedia is proof that there are people out there prepared to work to enable better information for people they have never met. I also think that it is human nature to want to tell someone about something that they have noticed. It is why people post to Sites like HN, Reddit, Slashdot
I don't think such a system can be supported by Advertising or Subscription. Advertising corrupts everything it touches and Subscription just closes the gate to the majority of users. I think it can only really be done by donation of time and resources by those who feel like the existence of the network is a societal good.
That last aspect represents a real challenge because in conjunction with the features described above it has to do all of the baseline things that a social media platform. Security, encryption, scalability. I have enough expertise to know what a daunting task this is, not nearly enough to implement it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always liked this idea! I think it should be device-level too, and not have a separate ephemeral identity. In other words if you get a new phone you have to start over.
So does the person who finds the phone inherits the identity? Can we have influencers selling off their circles? When I get robbed is my mugger now friends with my grandma?