Why does it require my email, first name, last name, and username to start?
Minus
121–130 of 182 posts
Re: Minus
#122I love this as an idea, but I suspect as a user, I would use either zero or one posts. I do like the idea that the platform can actively disrupt the "addictive" patterns that develop elsewhere. Other things I've wanted: - Instagram with an ML layer that auto-rejects pics with faces or text. Landscapes, vistas, animals, architecture etc all would be welcome. - high latency Twitter, where no post is viewable until at l…
The trouble with making a worse option is that people still have choice and will simply use the more entertaining version instead. You can't just make a new social network that's not as engaging as the existing ones because nobody would use it. The moment you're really curious about the thing being hidden from you in the degraded service, you'll sneak a look at the real one to find out. If you had so much self control that you don't, then why do you even need a service for it? Just limit the number of hours you spend on social media yourself.
Re: Minus
#123I love this as an idea, but I suspect as a user, I would use either zero or one posts. I do like the idea that the platform can actively disrupt the "addictive" patterns that develop elsewhere. Other things I've wanted: - Instagram with an ML layer that auto-rejects pics with faces or text. Landscapes, vistas, animals, architecture etc all would be welcome. - high latency Twitter, where no post is viewable until at l…
I really like like the idea of a "high latency" social network, effectively bringing back the feeling of old snail mail (but more public). 2 weeks seems unnecessarily extreme to me though, even 24h would probably be enough to severely limit the flame potential. It would also potentially mean that one could have a daily routine of checking for the new content and replies and writing your own stuff and you're good to g…
It's not necessary to inject intentional latency in the manner the parent suggests via a rather extreme delay.
You can accomplish a lot of the same outcome by merely eradicating following feeds (that is, the combined stream of posts from users that you follow).
In the early days of Facebook when you had to manually visit user pages to see what was new with someone or what they were posting, it was dramatically lower velocity in terms of how fast bullshit would spread and how much content you could reasonably consume. It would reduce page views / content views spectacularly, by including just that little bit of time and labor cost to the consumption. People would focus that effort primarily on the users that really matter to them.
The social networks of course know this. They built the streams / feeds / walls for that reason, to turbocharge the addiction. They'll never give it up.
Re: Minus
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really like like the idea of a "high latency" social network, effectively bringing back the feeling of old snail mail (but more public). 2 weeks seems unnecessarily extreme to me though, even 24h would probably be enough to severely limit the flame potential. It would also potentially mean that one could have a daily routine of checking for the new content and replies and writing your own stuff and you're good to g…
It's not necessary to inject intentional latency in the manner the parent suggests via a rather extreme delay. You can accomplish a lot of the same outcome by merely eradicating following feeds (that is, the combined stream of posts from users that you follow). In the early days of Facebook when you had to manually visit user pages to see what was new with someone or what they were posting, it was dramatically lower…
I currently use Twitter this way. I stay logged out (deleted the password from my password manager) and visit Twitter.com/username directly for a few folks I want to read. It’s indeed way less addicting.
(Twitter really wants you to log in and view your feed but they’ll still let you read the site this way)
Re: Minus
#125This comes from the same galaxy as https://www.yourworldoftext.com/
Re: Minus
#126It would be interesting to have a network with a time bank like BBSs were. You get x time every Y hours to read or comment. It would be like noprocrast but not configurable. I think I may make it...
Re: Minus
#127This but limited to 100 friends.
Re: Minus
#128What's always difficult when trying out projects like this one is that none of my friends are willing to join it with me, so I have to either talk to myself or to strangers. And this weakens the feeling of engagement for me.
Re: Minus
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, not more. Sending a comment takes you down to zero, you're done. Unless that person likes your comment. Popular posts or number of likes per comment would be irrelevant. The idea I guess is to allow and even encourage a friendly back and forth without burning all your credits. Example. A -I released this tool! B - Wow nice how long did that take A - Thanks, 6 months. At this point, the conversation is done unle…
Unfortunately this doesn’t help with flame wars where people can go over to a sub thread they get agreement on to harvest credits to then brigade the ones they disagree with.
This doesn't work in the described way. Commenting takes you to zero, only one person could agree to take you back to 1.
So going to a subgroup of your likeminded people would do nothing. You can comment 'like me pls', which would take you from one credit to 0. The responder liking it would take credit back to 1, which is where it was initially. So, nothing gained.
However, one would have to solve the multiple account problem, which every site has to deal with.
Re: Minus
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really like like the idea of a "high latency" social network, effectively bringing back the feeling of old snail mail (but more public). 2 weeks seems unnecessarily extreme to me though, even 24h would probably be enough to severely limit the flame potential. It would also potentially mean that one could have a daily routine of checking for the new content and replies and writing your own stuff and you're good to g…
Is this not email? I really hope to be able to report back in about a year or so on ways to better communicate. At first I thought, maybe the best online dialectics is just walls of careful text rather than tweets. Now I try doing that, and I make careless mistakes and I can barely parse a paragraph without losing my train of thought. The solution I think is explicit structure. Arguments usually form a (for now let's…
No, it's not email.
Email has a latency measured in seconds. Also, email is not usually public.
Explicit structure could be interesting, but structure from whose perspective? Arguments can be modeled many ways, such that there is no one correct answer. Also, that the argument could be modeled as a DAG might be very optimistic in many circumstances.