Live data from Hacker News

Stop trying to make social networks succeed

ploum.net

161–170 of 226 posts

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#161

It’s my belief that the continued attempt to dominate the social networking space is related to predicted upcoming societal changes. They are the hot glue underneath a AML/KYC-based identity verification systems at scale and the sticky requirement for anyone looking to build such a system at scale. There is no better verification than social context for identity, and at core these are giant graph databases that have…

While there are definitely those in positions of power attempting to exert control over populaces, you could also consider that not everything is necessarily the result of a perfectly coordinated conspiracy, and that Musk paid a particular price because he thought it would be hilarious if the number was a weed reference.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#162
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol it's so explicit at this point he's the world's leading expert on the enshittification cycle

The ironic thing is that he lists monetization last, but simply by uttering that sentiment he tells us that they are really thinking about monetization first, aka the end goal of the product.

I don't think he's ever suggested Facebook is anything but a for profit enterprise, but I think it is an extremely cynical take that "build a product a billion people would use before thinking about monetization" actually means "think about monetization first".

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#163
post #159
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> first the infrastructure to run a billion (real) people is going to cost you an epic fuckton I highly doubt that the actual essential infrastructure required to run it is going to cost more than 8 billion dollars/year. Twitter costs about $5 billion a year. Let's charge $2/year to be on the safe side. We've now raking in $16 billion a year, enough to cover the costs, offer some dividend, and put some money aside fo…

Your numbers just don't make sense. First, if you had a bare bones social media site, it could be ran for $1b a year. Lets use that number. Ok, so who are you getting that money from? I mean from me that $1 is some inconsiderable fraction of my income, it's nothing. But there lies the problem with income inequality in the world. For a huge portion of people you're asking for a pretty damned considerable payment for s…

Well if we was doing it properly, then it would be pegged to an hour of minimum wage or half an hour in whatever country you was operating in.

> That other ad ran company is paying off influencers and 'cool kids' to be solely on their product with their ad and VC money while charging nothing. It will grow quickly while your site founders.

Maybe. But what if it was a cool kid celebrity who made the site in the first place? There's a bunch of them out there, and quite a few who want to make the world a better place. Maybe if the vision was explained to them they'd get on board for free.

And the counterpoint is that there's been plenty of social networks that have had cool kids jump on board that have turned out to be duds. Everyone was raving about that audio chat room one during the pandemic and I can't even remember the name of it now.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#164
post #13

Social networks wouldn't have any users if they didn't solve a problem and/or fulfill a need that people have. What problem is it that they solve? IMO they solve exactly two problems. 1) People with no technical skills or knowledge (can't setup their own web site) want to be able to publish text, photo, and video content to the public, to a community, and/or to their direct contacts. They do not want to have to use a…

The cost per user to maintain these kinds of platforms is extremely low. That's why advertising supported models work. So that means if you charged for a platform, you wouldn't need to charge each user very much on a monthly or yearly basis. Such a platform could still be one that require no technical skills or knowledge from the users, who just want to publish their stuff. Many people (especially tech people) have a…

Modern platforms are for most folks tools of compulsive consumption more than they are tools for meaningful communication. More users = more content = more consumption. More consumption means more chances to serve ads for a business built on that model.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#166
post #22
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to us, but there are other folks out there. As I've implied elsewhere, I like little geek communities too, but the big easy networks can and have fulfilled an important purpose of essentially being a better world "town square" than, e.g. network news. They're incredibly far from perfect, but they've done a LOT of good, and are likely to continue to be necessary.

> they've done a LOT of good And a LOT of bad. Overall, do the costs of global social networks outweigh the benefits? I'm skeptical.

As a Black person in America, I'm not in the slightest. Documented and spread proof that "we're not crazy, look at this stuff that actually does happen."

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to overlook the role of institutional capital in shaping the landscape of nearly everything. As a teen I grinded for a few months building a b2b SaaS. A competitor launched a better version for free. The founder had a Harvard MBA and used VC funds to build this marketing tool. Growing a product organically puts you at a disadvantage to companies that can ignore market fundamentals for years at a time. And i…

I think the way to do it is by growing inside a niche that is sufficiently narrow that it isn't interesting for a big competitor.

I have a small agency and a product in a niche market and even there big consulting and IT services companies are starting spin offs to address these niches, and even bidding at a loss (especially when you take into account pre sales investments) to displace remaining niche actors like us.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#168
post #24
post #15

Couldn't disagree more. Big "winners" in this space can be dangerous, but they can also be an important tool/unfortunate necessity when it comes to national or global "news." Which is to say, yes, I want a good replacement for Twitter because social media more-or-less succeeded where "the Rodney King story" failed.

> I want a good replacement for Twitter because social media more-or-less succeeded where "the Rodney King story" failed. Could you please explain this? I know what the Rodney King story is, but I don't understand the relevance here.

Right -- I'm a little older than many, but to explain:

When the Rodney King thing happened, black folks like myself were like "Finally, the world will see how horrible the cops can be. We will have a trial and get justice."

That didn't remotely happen. It's not until social media that we got e.g. BLM and even the concept of a "Karen." IMHO, it's been absolutely instrumental.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#169

It’s my belief that the continued attempt to dominate the social networking space is related to predicted upcoming societal changes. They are the hot glue underneath a AML/KYC-based identity verification systems at scale and the sticky requirement for anyone looking to build such a system at scale. There is no better verification than social context for identity, and at core these are giant graph databases that have…

While there are definitely those in positions of power attempting to exert control over populaces, you could also consider that not everything is necessarily the result of a perfectly coordinated conspiracy, and that Musk paid a particular price because he thought it would be hilarious if the number was a weed reference.

I don’t see how conspiracy theory enters any of this whatsoever.

These are the declared plans from the man himself:

https://me.mashable.com/tech/27088/twitter-20-undergoes-a-ma...

That isn’t exactly hidden.

Perhaps the true intentions of Meta/Zuck/Facebook are underdisclosed, but after their KYC fiasco with crypto it’s clear they want to go there and just haven’t been able to cement the regulatory relationships yet or simply got on the wrong side of the regulatory compliance community and aren’t yet reingratiated into their good graces. But you will see another attempt at direct financial instrumentation on their properties as it’s the most valuable application of their data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/28/faceboo...

And as to coordination, to deny attempts to concentrate power through coordinating the military industrial complex would be a foolhardy argument at this point, though there are clearly competing groups and philosophies.

I’m suggesting it’s more like a classic SV land grab… because that’s what it really is. And people’s connection and resultant financial enablement data is the prize underneath social networks, because it clearly is. And the person doing it is talking openly about what they are doing, so calling it a “conspiracy theory” is patently incorrect as a conspiracy would require some kind of secretive collusion to exist and all of this is discussed and public information shared by the architects themselves.

We should be concerned about how concentrated data collection and management is as the power is profound when combined with mature AI, not accusing one another of “conspiracies” at this point. I’ve long advocated for something like a “Privacy Bill of Rights,” but I fear the genie is too far out of the bottle now that the ruling classes have become aware of the profound technological potential of the data expressed through social finance.

After all, as they say, to control a city, control the water. A country? Food. The world? Finance.

I also don’t think it particularly matters what price was paid or whether it’s in the SEXY theme or 420 reference, as it’s common to see these kinds of number games among purchases by the super rich in my personal experience. It’s the general degree of size category of valuation that matters, not the numeric humor Elon injects into his numbers.

How many houses have I seen go for 1,234,567 or 2,345,678 in the offer paperwork? Same for cars and watch prices. I’ll say: more than a few. It’s all a game of points, leverage and reputation at the highest personal wealth levels. The self declared bon vivants consider themselves reincarnated Pharos destined to inherit the earth and love to play financial games with numbers on purchases and sales. That doesn’t make them any less of a business decision.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#170

I think the VC world's obsession with growth has tainted how we (me included) view things, especially stuff like social media. There is a fixation with growing and doing it rapidly that I believe is harmful. I don't know when this switch flipped, but I've felt it gradually building up over time. Things can just be what they are, grow naturally and then die naturally. I suspect that injecting cash and attempting to ac…

At this point there needs to be a very big and popular anti-capitalist push before anything good comes back.

I'm all about the human rights as my first concern so any fellow SJWs reading can rest assured they don't need to interrogate me about whether I know about this or that type of oppression. BUT, can I just for a moment talk about how literally tasteless life has become?

Here in Canada, we have for my whole life had a different Special K than USans. Closest I could describe it is it was like flat rice krispies with a different kinda flavor, sort of like the American one but not completely.

The private equity that owns the Kelloggs brand now shut down the Canadian factory, which is the only place that made that Special K. Now we have "Original" on our shelves, in an extra bit of gaslighting.

I like candy, always have. I took the notion the other day to go find some Kraft Chocolate Flavor Caramels. Lately they're called Fudgies. Most lately they're discontinued.

Nothing small or niche that doesn't produce a specific profit margin is safe.

Post reply on HN