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

171–180 of 281 posts

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#171

Post by zzzeek »

esfandia wrote: post #47
zzzeek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it should be email. but you need to build a fabulous UX on top of it that is as simple and instant gratification as Facebook, and you need to do it essentially for free, or with a grant or something, because it will never make a dime.

Why doesn't this exist already? Sounds very feasible. Your "friends" are people in a given mailing-list, and even a minute action such as "like" could also just be an email sent to that mailing-list, with some proper tagging in the subject header, so that the email client knows not to display the email but rather act on it as an event handler.

yup, that's been my idea for a few years now, see if you can get PG to run with it. You're welcome.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#172

Post by mawburn »

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 whole point of a social network is to connect with friends. If it was a paid service, nobody would be on it.

Considering that every other startup has wanted to build "Facebook/MySpace/Twitter BUT FOR XXXX" for the last decade, I guarantee what you want is out there (or has existed at some point), but nobody is on it and nobody has heard of it, because it costs money and nobody is going to pay money for a social network that's empty. I personally wouldn't pay money for a social network that's not empty, either... and I'm sure a lot of people share my sentiment.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#173

Post by catach »

corobo wrote: post #169
pnutjam wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

From their privacy page:

"We don’t track you personally and we never sell your personal data. Here is what we track: we track how users use our site in general so that we can make it better. We are monitoring traffic, usage activity, site performance, and we use general analytic tools so that we can improve your experience. We do not associate any of this data with you personally. We never sell or share your personally identifiable information unless required to do so by law."

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#174

Post by naasking »

dllthomas wrote: post #68
naasking wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So we would make a medical record “bank”, which is federated sensibly, and require everyone to use it. And eventually we end up with a similar system that we have now. Except accessing your encrypted records require the presentation a doctor's key and your key, which might be a standardized health card with a chip. So not entirely similar to what we have now, it could be considerably safer.

> it could be considerably safer. If my card is lost or broken? The system you describe seems clearly at less risk of inappropriate disclosure. Whether it's safer is perhaps another question.

a) You still need physical access to a terminal to use the key, and b) you revoke the key when it's reported lost.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#175

Post by boomlinde »

bachmeier wrote: post #164
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…

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

Is that a bad thing?

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#176

Post by zzzeek »

Slansitartop wrote: post #53
esfandia wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't this exist already? Sounds very feasible. Your "friends" are people in a given mailing-list, and even a minute action such as "like" could also just be an email sent to that mailing-list, with some proper tagging in the subject header, so that the email client knows not to display the email but rather act on it as an event handler.

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…

twitter is essentially auto-scraped and in general, I think if my friends posted something, I've seen it, and I should be able to keep a copy of it. one feature of the "email as a social network" idea is that it really would be just "your friends". you wouldn't be exposed to far-flung randos the way facebook likes to game you into doing.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#177

Post by gnud »

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 think some sort of freemium would be the way to go. Photos/videos expire unless you pay, limited space for photos/videos unless you pay, limited group size, limited amount of events/month, integrated ticket sales, branding oppts. for business pages.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#178

Post by catach »

jamesrcole wrote: post #135
bamboozled wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I don't think so, it would be good if someone did a study on this though. Most people I know think privacy is important. I do think people are communicating via other mediums more than before though. It's anecdotal but most of my family and friends just gravitate towards iMessage , Facetime and Telegram to communicate by default now. Could it be that people don't care about this issue because they care about…

> Most people I know think privacy is important. The question is, how representative are those people of the population at large?

And the follow-up question is, how much do they think it's important relative to other things?

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#179

Post by JasonFruit »

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…

Social is an adjective. I will die on this hill.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#180

Post by corobo »

catach wrote: post #173
corobo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!)

From their privacy page: "We don’t track you personally and we never sell your personal data. Here is what we track: we track how users use our site in general so that we can make it better. We are monitoring traffic, usage activity, site performance, and we use general analytic tools so that we can improve your experience. We do not associate any of this data with you personally. We never sell or share your personal…

Honestly it might have just been a first impression tripup. When you first visit the site it looks extremely busy then you scroll through the FAQ and they have a competitor to and "far superior to" slack, a competitor to Google Drive/Dropbox, obvious one is a competitor to Facebook

I'm going to give it a try but for the sole reason Tim Berners-Lee is an advisor[1] and seems to still vouch for it[2] 3 years on

[1] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/590726480696573952

[2] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/976553383564840962

Post reply on HN