Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 281 posts

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#161

Post by thanatropism »

esfandia wrote: post #70
Slansitartop wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One important functionality gap, between FB and email, is that email always creates copies that are easily controlled by the recipient by design. While it's technically true that a FB recipient could be auto-scraping everything, practically that's not true, which allows people to retroactively delete things with a large chance of success. I feel like reasonably effective retro-active deletion is an important feature…

Very good point. I guess if we're going to use email as a substitute for Facebook we could use messages containing deletion/update directives. Clients could still of course decide to ignore them or interpret them however they wish.

Just send content as in a secondary server that can be deleted whenever.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#162

Post by TrevorAustin »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #158
jcadam wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In 2017 FB made $40B in revenue on 2B users.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#163

Post by freeflight »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #103
freeflight wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What baffles me is it took so much evidence from the medical community to convince people about smoking. That isn't really the issue, smokers have been aware of the negative consequences for quite a while. Many are okay with it due to the relief the smoking brings them from stress and other issues, it's a trade-off. Just like alcohol ain't that healthy for you but many people still chose to drink it. But on the oth…

For the effect on schizophrenia to explain the people who have difficulty quitting smoking, the population of people who have difficulty quitting smoking would have to be similar in size to (really, smaller than) the population of schizophrenics. But I would bet that it's much larger.

Afaik schizophrenia is a spectrum, so some are bound to be affected worse than others. I also didn't say it was the only reason for people having trouble kicking the habit, only one of the factors for it, so there's still plenty of room for non-schizophrenics not being able to kick the habit due to tobacco (and the additives tobacco companies add to it) being highly addictive.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#164

Post by bachmeier »

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…

$60/year to post about taking the kids to visit Grandma is pretty steep for most users.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#165

Post by netchkin »

im_dario wrote: post #117
fabianhjr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, scuttlebutt even works great over mesh networks and intermittent internet. http://scuttlebutt.nz/ https://ssbc.github.io/scuttlebutt-protocol-guide/

Although Scuttlebutt is a nice solution, I think it fails to replace Facebook because: 1. Different use case: trying it out it reminded me more of a Slack/IRC/bulletin board than anything else. 2. Different framing: it uses a public square (Twitter) framing (follow, follower, channel) instead of a personal relationships framing (friends, groups, etc). 3. Too complex for casual users: this is kind of ironic because Sc…

I have been intrigued by scuttlebutt for a few months now, and these are pretty interesting comments you make. Did you try to discuss them with the community around scuttlebutt?

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#166

Post by vidanay »

TrevorAustin wrote: post #162
jasonkostempski wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In 2017 FB made $40B in revenue on 2B users.

So $2 per month per user sounds about right.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#167

Post by petepete »

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…

The reason Friends Reunited failed (at least here in the UK) was definitely that any payment was too big a barrier. Most people just don't care. They didn't before CA, they don't now.

I use FB as I attend various gatherings that organise there, but I no longer contribute much, and am phasing it out.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#168

Post by marcinzm »

hvidgaard wrote: post #65
thephyber wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is exactly how health/medical data should exist. My family should have their own health/medical network node and only my direct healthcare providers should be able to access the data from it and only after I authorize them with a digital signature. Whatever data they generate about my person (or persons in my family) should be owned by me, stored in my family network, and only available to others after I…

The average Joe will never manage to do that. So unless the state develop, maintain, and make available free of charge, such a service, it will never happen.

In which case you've now built a centralized medical record storage system. And since people lose their keys all the time and you don't want that to cause them to lose all their medical records you also now have access to their medical records in plain text.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#169

Post by corobo »

pnutjam wrote: post #150
jug wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's absolutely about four simple steps: 1. Going to a mobile-first website or app. 2. Clicking a link. 3. Typing in your new e-mail and password. 4. Being able to add anyone in the world as friends. It cannot be about local "hubs" vs the global "public" / federation, being forced to make that distinction would feel like a step backwards for the users. It can be distributed in the back end, but not in the front…

Anybody check out https://mewe.com

> No spying. No cookies. No data sharing.

How do you stay logged in if there's no cookies?

It also looks like they try to do too much. Cure-alls cure nothing (thanks for the quip, Sawbones podcast!)

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#170

Post by catach »

jug wrote: post #146
tomcooks wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not about privacy, it still isn't about privacy. It's about usability, and the flocking to Mastodon when there are better options around is the proof of this theory of mine.

Yes. It's absolutely about four simple steps: 1. Going to a mobile-first website or app. 2. Clicking a link. 3. Typing in your new e-mail and password. 4. Being able to add anyone in the world as friends. It cannot be about local "hubs" vs the global "public" / federation, being forced to make that distinction would feel like a step backwards for the users. It can be distributed in the back end, but not in the front…

I'd say Reddit is good evidence that the beauty element is optional, for the goal of Many Users.
Post reply on HN