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

Stop trying to make social networks succeed

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 226 posts

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#211

Post by pier25 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #205
pier25 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that forums weren't really made for boosting engagement. It's like email, just a tool to do something not to keep people addicted. GenZ look at forums and they go eeewww.

You clearly don't remember the engagement involved of seeing post counts rise, or the activity of threads you start.

I still use forums every day.

I'm not saying there's not engagement.

I'm saying they were not designed for that. Unlike Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#212

Post by badtension »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #95
mattbuilds wrote: post #19

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…

I think it's a problem outside of the VC-adjacent space too. There's a sense that if you can't solve a huge societal problem (ideally several), it's not worth doing anything. It's really disempowering mindset because most of those problems are really hard to solve. It's like all the focus is on what effect the thing you're building will have on the world, rather than just building something because you think it would…

Oh man well said, I had this uneasy feeling while reading your comment.

I think the world is fucked, especially in how it's planting incentives in our brains. For girls it's clothes, make-up, being fit. For guys it's cars, games, sex. And of course there's general consumerism that doesn't gender-discriminate anyone.

For tech people there's something else I hate with passion: creating images of great, world changing people. We aspire to be Zucks, Musks, Gateses, Holmes (yes, theranos). It's always bullshit to sell something or gain political power but the damage is done anyway. It's hard to live a simple life and enjoy simple things when everyone around expected you to look up to them and change the world. Many people believed their narration and became sociopaths that maximize gains on every opportunity. Even I was very drawn to "growth hacking" before. Now I see how crazy it all is.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#213

Post by carlosjobim »

danjoredd wrote: post #206
kelnos wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money Speak for yourself; whenever I have the option to pay to remove ads on a service I get value from, I sign up nigh immediately. And on top of that, I'm always running with aggressive ad and tracker blockers running. If given the option, I would have paid a small yearly fee to use Instagram back ~10 years ago when t…

I try to do this but money is limited. If I tried this for every service I use, I would be pretty broke and I am not the only one. The average salary in America is around 40-50k/year. Factor in kids, rent, food, and everything else, paying for no ads gets real expensive real quick. That's why I wish there was a good in-between option that respects privacy and our attention, but still allows sites to make a profit. I…

If somebody can't afford let's say $20 per year for a service that they enjoy, then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it. I understand the argument that "It's not worth it", that's for each individual to decide. But then those people shouldn't ask for somebody else to provide it to them for free or without ads. You can have it if you want it, and if you don't want it that much, then do something else with your time, no?

I have never heard any argument about classism or blocking out poor people applied to the devices needed to get online, the computers, the phones. Strange, isn't it?

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#214

Post by danjoredd »

carlosjobim wrote: post #213
danjoredd wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to do this but money is limited. If I tried this for every service I use, I would be pretty broke and I am not the only one. The average salary in America is around 40-50k/year. Factor in kids, rent, food, and everything else, paying for no ads gets real expensive real quick. That's why I wish there was a good in-between option that respects privacy and our attention, but still allows sites to make a profit. I…

If somebody can't afford let's say $20 per year for a service that they enjoy, then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it. I understand the argument that "It's not worth it", that's for each individual to decide. But then those people shouldn't ask for somebody else to provide it to them for free or without ads. You can have it if you want it, and if you don't want it that much, then do s…

>then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it

That is VERY flawed logic that suggests a very privileged life. Growing up my family was downright poor to the point we sometimes lost electricity because we had to buy bologna and bread for supper instead. We used an ancient PC that was given to us to access the internet which was 10$/month for dialup, but even that sometimes got cut out, again, because we needed food. Having spent most of my childhood in a trailer park with disparaged people, it often comes down to a mix of tough situations, bad luck, and poor life choices. Should we really punish them for it by locking things behind a paywall? I don't think so. Also should we have our privacy be violated to support the poor? Also no.

This is why I am trying to brainstorm a third option...one that isn't classist but still allows for privacy. Its a tough question and I am having trouble coming up with solutions...but a third option HAS to exist somewhere.

As for your point about classism not being applied to the devices themselves, that is because you could fall out of a tree and hit five cell phones on your way down. If you know pretty much anyone, they probably have a spare old phone they haven't touched in years they can let you have if you can't afford your own. People also throw them out all the time so you can get one out of the trash and it will still be plenty useable. With public WiFi, no matter how poor you are you can still access the internet. Its a weird time where even the homeless can access Facebook without even having to pay for a device

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#215

Post by mym1990 »

hobo_in_library wrote: post #148
mym1990 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mean, did you think he was pouring money into this out of the goodness of his heart?

No, no, just pointing out the blatant contradiction in the statement. Although I do wish an app intended for a billion people had a component of goodness to it!

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#216

Post by squarefoot »

afterburner wrote: post #151
squarefoot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game publishers must fear the day when a FOSS game engine will be interfaced with a FOSS AI capable of creating credible worlds and interacting NPCs.

More recycled garbage that I can ignore

They already use procedural generation for worlds and stupid NPCs. If adding Open Source AI makes offline single player games more credible, I'd be all for it. If not also because that would force them to make online multiplayer games a lot more palatable. The point is creating competition, not discouraging multiplayer.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#217

Post by carlosjobim »

danjoredd wrote: post #214
carlosjobim wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody can't afford let's say $20 per year for a service that they enjoy, then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it. I understand the argument that "It's not worth it", that's for each individual to decide. But then those people shouldn't ask for somebody else to provide it to them for free or without ads. You can have it if you want it, and if you don't want it that much, then do s…

>then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it That is VERY flawed logic that suggests a very privileged life. Growing up my family was downright poor to the point we sometimes lost electricity because we had to buy bologna and bread for supper instead. We used an ancient PC that was given to us to access the internet which was 10$/month for dialup, but even that sometimes got cut out, again…

I don't want to pass judgement on another posters parents, even though you told your personal story here, so I'll answer your comment as best as I can with that in mind. You shouldn't be so eager to pass judgement on me either. You don't know me or my life.

Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor. Okay, but how do you make progress from that?

I stand by my point that if somebody can't pay a very small yearly fee for access to the content or service they want, then they weren't that interested. If you are so poor that you can't afford $10 per year, then you have much bigger problems than accessing some online content of interest. The goal for a person in that situation or somebody who wants to help them is to get out of poverty, not to cope.

As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content: You can get information for free at a library, you can socialize with any friend by meeting in person. It's a less convenient experience than having it at home, but using a discarded device is also a less convenient experience.

I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars?

Is it "classism" that an employer pays a wage that is much lower than what the worker produces? Yes! Is it "classism" that you have to indebt yourself for life to afford a home or pay rent for literally nothing? Yes! Is it classism that a large percentage of the population spend their whole life without ever having done anything productive, because they have unlimited taps for money taken as taxes from workers? Yes!

But instead of being upset at those who are to blame for poverty, it is easier to direct that rage towards some internet poster like me, who dares to suggest that not everything should be free.

Here are what I see as the options to have online services:

1. Current ad-fueled, spam-ridden content and social networks

2. Cheap paid content and social networks

3. Creators work for free, making content for your benefit without any reimbursement. After some time they burn out or can't afford the time it takes.

4. Pirating. Mainstream creators can take it, small time creators go broke.

5. You vote for communism so that content creators get paid by the government and everybody can benefit for free. The content will be what the communist government prefers for you to have.

I prefer option 2.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#218

Post by carlosjobim »

Nasrudith wrote: post #203
danjoredd wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Many people (especially tech people) have an almost psychotic adversity against any kind of paid online services. That is what confuses me...we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money to join a social media. Are there any third options to support platforms that don't require payments, or advertisement viewing?

> That is what confuses me...we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money to join a social media. Are there any third options to support platforms that don't require payments, or advertisement viewing? There is a bit of a highly honed instinct that paying for it doesn't make you not the product and is thus a rip off. Cable TV has ads and it keeps on creeping i…

Cable ads are always brought up, but what about all the other services you can pya for to not have ads? Fastmail has been providing this service for a long time, for example.

And what is the risk exactly? If a paid service starts introducing ads, you can cancel. You can cancel cable TV as well.

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#219

Post by cableshaft »

mym1990 wrote: post #97
wavemode wrote: post #62

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.

Even if he didn't say it, it's implicit in who they are. Do you really think a massive social media corporation is going to launch another social media platform, just for funsies?

Re: Stop trying to make social networks succeed

#220

Post by cableshaft »

xeromal wrote: post #66
mattbuilds wrote: post #19

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…

This is a huge tangent, but I've started harboring similar feelings for video games. Go read comments for the latest game and 90% of the comments will be about item drops, skins, loot drops, whatever. It's absolutely mind boggling because all those things IMO suck the fun out of the game which it to kill something, kill someone, or explore some world.

Just stop playing most AAA or mobile games and that should solve most of that for you. The exceptions being the God of War series, the Mario and Zelda series. I still get excited for those. And probably the next Elder Scrolls or Witcher game.

But other than that, lately I've been far more excited about the Persona series, Nier Automata, Spike Chunsoft games (especially Danganronpa), The Witness (a bit older now), The Outer Wilds, Subnautica, Slay the Spire, Inscryption, and Vampire Survivors.

Tears of the Kingdom is probably the best pure exploration game ever made, with Outer Wilds being better in some ways, as it's simulating an entier solar system in real time and has some really clever ideas in it, but it's a smaller game overall. I think I pretty much fully explored Outer Wilds (except the expansion) in 20 hours, I've aleady put in 80 hours into TOTK and I've seen maybe 40% of the content so far.

Post reply on HN