Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#151

Post by gvurrdon » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 11:48 AM UTC

The only possible thing for which I might need Facebook would be for groups, as some hobbies seem to have almost entirely moved there for event organisation and general discussion.

Previously we used to use forums such as phpBB, but setting up one of these involved finding someone able to host the forum software on their server. Tapatalk could be set up to improve the mobile experience, but most users seemed to find that somehow difficult. There was also a constant battle with spam and malware.

I'm not sure what would suit - Mastodon and Diaspora don't seem to me to be the right solutions here. Currently, I am making do with being out of the loop and missing things.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#152

Post by noobermin » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 11:55 AM UTC

obstacle1 wrote: post #149

noobermin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people care a lot more today than they used too. The problem is people use facebook because they have to.

>The problem is people use facebook because they have to. It's remarkable how common this opinion is given its obvious shallowness. Nobody has to use Facebook. What are the consequences of not? You can't chat with your friends or view their selfies or see event listings. Or rather to do these things, you have to make an effort to use some other more private mode of communication like phone or in-person or classifieds…

You really read my comment in the worst possible light. No one has to use facebook but so many people connect through it that there are social costs to not using it. If people want to connect with you, you can't use messenger or groups, bam, that cuts off a lot of your connection with others.

I didn't mean that using facebook is a requirement for life and I'm not sure why your first inclination is to read others' comments that way.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#153

Post by pnutjam » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 11:59 AM UTC

p49k wrote: post #104

Has anyone seen a product that was functional, polished, and enjoyable to use that would be capable of replacing Facebook? I haven't. Diaspora, Mastodon, Ello are the only things that I can think of, and none of them come close to matching the basic functionality and the "it just works" factor of Facebook. Maybe someone should put in some resources to create a polished product and see what happens? It doesn't even ha…

Try this one. It's the most user friendly I've seen: https://mewe.com

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#154

Post by corobo » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:00 PM UTC

vinniejames wrote: post #46

We did replace it, almost 10 years ago. It was called Diaspora[1], no one cared about privacy then. No one really cares about privacy now, at least not enough to do anything about it. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)

I get flashbacks to scrolling error messages whenever someone mentions Diaspora. Just horrible software to use if it ever had an issue. Great when starting but the maintenance time costs were too high

Nothing to do with not caring about privacy, I really did try to use it. Even had 100 users or so on my open instance.

It was on par with running a public email service. Not my circus.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#155

Post by vijaybritto » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:03 PM UTC

"Another “alt-Facebook” could be a nonprofit that uses that status to signal its dedication to better practices, much as nonprofit hospitals and universities do" -> Honestly, I don't think this would be sustainable to function as a social network. At least I don't think it would work in a capitalist society.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#156

Post by akkat » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:06 PM UTC

tomcooks wrote: post #89

sidcool wrote: post #39

I tried explaining my 20 year old cousin about FB. Her constant argument was "I don't share anything private on FB". She checks in on FB everywhere she goes. Posts her pics all the time. I could not instill any sense of concern for privacy. What I could conclude is that the appeal of social is too great to have any caution. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think FB is going anywhere. People will keep using it inspite…

Everytime you say, hear or read the word "Facebook" replace it with either "mom and dad" or "the creep". Works great.

Except it doesn't. Situation a: Facebook knows what I did last night. Result: I get ads tailored to what I did.

Situation b: Mom and Dad knows what I did last night. Result: I get grounded.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#157

Post by jcadam » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:14 PM UTC

vijaybritto wrote: post #155

"Another “alt-Facebook” could be a nonprofit that uses that status to signal its dedication to better practices, much as nonprofit hospitals and universities do" -> Honestly, I don't think this would be sustainable to function as a social network. At least I don't think it would work in a capitalist society.

I've had the same thought. Charge a small monthly fee in lieu of running ads or selling user data. Might cut down on fake/spam accounts as well.

But I don't think it would work (and I'd totally work on something like this if I thought it would). People say they care about privacy, but when you present them with the option of paying $5/mo for a service that respects their privacy or using a "free" service that tracks everything they do and sells that data to anyone who'll pay, they'll almost always opt for the latter.

Now, I would certainly pay a monthly fee for a non-user-hostile social network experience. And I would consider the smaller user base a feature, so long as it wasn't too small.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#158

Post by jasonkostempski » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:22 PM UTC

jcadam wrote: post #157

vijaybritto wrote: post #155

"Another “alt-Facebook” could be a nonprofit that uses that status to signal its dedication to better practices, much as nonprofit hospitals and universities do" -> Honestly, I don't think this would be sustainable to function as a social network. At least I don't think it would work in a capitalist society.

I've had the same thought. Charge a small monthly fee in lieu of running ads or selling user data. Might cut down on fake/spam accounts as well. But I don't think it would work (and I'd totally work on something like this if I thought it would). People say they care about privacy, but when you present them with the option of paying $5/mo for a service that respects their privacy or using a "free" service that tracks…

Does FB make $5 a month off the average user? If not, $5 a year? Regardless of what FB makes, could $5 a year keep a FB clone alive at FBs current volume? Would people even pay that?

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#159

Post by bsenftner » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

vinniejames wrote: post #46

We did replace it, almost 10 years ago. It was called Diaspora[1], no one cared about privacy then. No one really cares about privacy now, at least not enough to do anything about it. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)

They were "selected" because they were likely to fail, gave pithy interviews, and were young and hopeful. Facebook even gave them $50K - that is not competition, that is coddling a child.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#160

Post by aninhumer » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

obstacle1 wrote: post #149

noobermin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people care a lot more today than they used too. The problem is people use facebook because they have to.

>The problem is people use facebook because they have to. It's remarkable how common this opinion is given its obvious shallowness. Nobody has to use Facebook. What are the consequences of not? You can't chat with your friends or view their selfies or see event listings. Or rather to do these things, you have to make an effort to use some other more private mode of communication like phone or in-person or classifieds…

I wouldn't go quite as far as saying people "have to" use Facebook, but there are fairly significant social costs to someone who chooses not to.

Many people's friends communicate primarily via Facebook, and you can't just get around that by using phones and emails. People have discussions, invite people to events and post important life updates on Facebook. Often the primary communication mechanism for an organisation or even a local business will be Facebook. And they often won't re-circulate all that information via email just for the benefit of people who don't use it.

And yet people insist on trivialising these costs, and blaming individuals for this massive invasion of privacy because they chose not to incur these costs, rather than questioning the circumstances that have led to people feeling forced to make such a choice.

Do you really think the people who are having their privacy violated explicitly chose that trade off because they're "lazy"? Or do you think, presented with a choice between signing up to a seemingly innocuous helpful website, or encroaching social isolation as their friends start using it, they chose the former?