Attention Media ≠ Social Networks • Hacker News Board

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#281

Post by rsolva » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 6:48 PM UTC

skandinaff wrote: post #278

rsolva wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking about social networks that is not Facebook. The challenge is to make something that can compete in this respect. It would be so nice to have the in-person part, but without the ads, scams, data theft and blackbox algorithms!

I suppose, if we reduce this problem to it's core - the question remains - who pays for the servers? That's the reason we don't have a idealistic web platforms - or am I wrong?

I run my own instance at home. Not everybody can do this, but if more nerds hosted instances for friends and family, it would get us somewhere at least :)

The goal is not instant world domination, but a organically grown network, providing an off-ramp for those that have had enough and are ready to take some action. Facilitating real world meet-ups would help, I think!

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#282

Post by alex1138 » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 8:41 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #179

The funny thing about Facebook is that it's got a perfectly good social network in there, I think the only one that exists. In the menu is "Feeds" which is what you want. It only shows friends and followed things. If they made that the default when you go to facebook.com I don't think I'd have any complaints feature-wise, though an ad-free option would be nice. It's a genuine social network. Of course, then there's t…

I could be wrong but I think they were basically forced to add Feeds by regulation (out of Europe?)

For ages it was Top Stories vs Most Recent. Most Recent didn't even work, and of course it would always change you back to Top Stories

With all the potential of the internet, we got stuck with fucking Zuckerberg? We know what he thinks about people.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#283

Post by baxuz » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 10:34 AM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #207

baxuz wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's media, it should be regulated like media.

Is this code for, "I want the cops to stop people from doing things online I don't like" or "we need more regularity / predictability"?

No, it's code for "a company giving a platform for disinformation gobbled up by billions of people should be held accountable".