Live data from Hacker News

Slow social media

herman.bearblog.dev

41–50 of 148 posts

Re: Slow social media

#41

> I think there should also be a reasonable cap on the number of connections that can be made. Something like 300 friends sounds right. Any more than that and you're a collector, and not using the platform to foster connection. Path[1] did that, but with a cap of 50, and then 150 (based on the Dunbar number of meaningful human connections one can retain). They had a crazy growth period but eventually went kaput. [1]…

I'm not sure vc funding and ads are compatible with a slow, quiet and healthy social network.

Re: Slow social media

#42
back in 2009 in Spain we had what the author describes in Tuenti (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuenti). at first it was invite only and by default people's profiles were private, you'd need to be friends to see their activity and pictures. your feed was just your friends statuses and new pictures in chronological order.

later on it got some games and a realtime chat but it ended up dying because of newer social networks. it was great to keep your actual friends and family connected.

Re: Slow social media

#43
I think something like a Whatsapp that recommends contacts that can be close is good enough. Something like friends of friends recommendations. But no more.

Re: Slow social media

#44
post #8

What are people using now instead of Facebook (for broastcast and interaction with friends/family)? Chat groups in WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc fulfills part of it but that's only a subset since people in one chat groups know each other to a certain degree.

WhatsApp and Signal are considered "social media" technically, though plenty of people are still on FB telling the world about their trips and what they ate for breakfast.

I'm always surprised at how HN folks are either unable or unwilling to admit that the fediverse exists beyond Bluesky or Mastodon. I far prefer lemmy to reddit, and Friendica is essentially that the author is describing. This stuff exists already, and it's the perverse incentives of social media such as walled gardens and a critical mass of people that are what keep them alive.

Re: Slow social media

#45

back in 2009 in Spain we had what the author describes in Tuenti ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuenti ). at first it was invite only and by default people's profiles were private, you'd need to be friends to see their activity and pictures. your feed was just your friends statuses and new pictures in chronological order. later on it got some games and a realtime chat but it ended up dying because of newer social…

In Hungary, we had iWiW, one of the earliest "social media" sites. (=international who is who - though it never went really international, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWiW, started as WiW in 2002).

It was also invite based and it was exciting to get an invite back then. It was more like a phone book, it had detailed profiles where you could specify your favorite things, introduce yourself, upload a few pictures etc. It didn't have a newsfeed. Later they would introduce some kind of notification when someone uploaded new pics. But it was mainly "poll-based", i.e. you'd go to specific profiles to see if they uploaded anything new.

This was a significant break from the pseudonymous forum and chat culture (A/S/L?), and blended your real life with the previously totally separate online world for the first time. Now you could look up classmates, see who viewed your profile, of course it drove a lot of teen drama as you'd expect. It was a more public companion to the nascent MSN Messenger culture (which replaced the SMS-based more private teen comms culture, which replaced the family-landline-phone-based gossip culture and of course IRL-based one, feels weird to have lived through all those transitions - we didn't even have a family landline phone in the early 90s and would use phone booths to call family members in other cities).

The mainstream dominance of iWiW in Hungary was actually quite short-lived (~2004-2009), though it feels longer in my memory, there was so much happening, so much new stuff popping up. Note also that iWiW got bought by the local subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom already in 2006. So it was quite obvious that there's commercial value in such sites.

Initially Facebook was also more profile-focused, where the main activity was looking up profiles, checking their friends, reading bios, looking at galleries etc. (where you actually clicked links to explore, instead of being fed a feed and just scrolling), and the newsfeed-focus only got introduced later.

Nowadays, Facebook is mostly a public agora in Hungary, the platform for politicians and pundits and social critique etc (instead of Twitter like in other countries). I think the eager culture to post updates for real friends has dwindled, people are less naive about it and also realized they don't really care all that much about their second cousin's vacations or their old classmates' life updates. Real personal "social media" is mostly in private Whatsapp groups I think.

Re: Slow social media

#46
The closest platform that is a somewhat known group of people coming together in a semi-private space seems to be Discord.

You can have as large or as small a community you want, you can have known people, unknown people.

Mastodon comes close as well, but the effort to start a discord community is so much smaller compared to running a Mastodon instance.

Re: Slow social media

#47
The author invented and then dashed against the rocks a few existing fediverse platforms in the course of a couple paragraphs.

These things already exist and struggle exactly because people comfortable with the walled garden approach forgot what FB was like in 2006 when you only knew 15 people on there. The lack of critical mass of your personal contacts outside of the walls is exactly how FB and IG keep you from venturing outside the walls.

Friendica is one of several fediverse platforms the author basically describes. You can even self-host an instance for yourself and friends/family.

And you may say:

> I tried Mastodon once, which is not immediately intuitive, and the apps aren't perfect. Plus, the wikipedia article describes something that isn't perfect, so I shouldn't bother.

Perfect. IMO, the minuscule friction to enter is the benefit. The walled gardens exist and hold people in such high numbers exactly because they've reduced the friction to enter and increased it to leave. The definition of a trap, yes?

Re: Slow social media

#48

A lot of his ideas remind me of the BeReal app, it limits posts per day and is geared toward 'friends in real life' and with just a few friends on it I've stayed engaged. But it's sparse for me and can be a ghost town much of the time, but that may be just because my friend group isn't using it much. There needs to be sufficient network effect to maintain and grow it's reach as a network, which may be antithetical to…

That's been my experience with BeReal as well. I seldom see posts from people I'm close with, and so I post less as well, and presumably that contributes to a similar feeling for other friends of mine. In fact, these days, I only post in it so that I can record the moment, to add it to the record of fotos which are convenient and fun to look back through.

I liked BeReal while it was still just post 1 picture a day. Now you have 'your brands' there, they try to increase 'engagement' by trying to get people use the app more... I was there when it happened on Facebook, I was there when it started on Instagram – not again, thx.

Re: Slow social media

#49
post #34

I guess if you could convince your friends & family to use something like https://friendi.ca/ it could work for you.

Exactly the same thing I thought of.

I expect that by suggesting something that is quite literally what the author described, we'll both be downvoted to hell because HN has a staunch "fediverse, ew!" mentality.

Re: Slow social media

#50

I don’t want to be limited to „meaningful connections!“ I stay in close contact with those who are dear to me outside of social media. I want to stay connected to some random coworker I enjoyed working with in 2011, because I enjoy watching them from a distance, getting married, settling down, that kind of stuff, and occasionally comment on these things. This used to be a strength of social media before algorithms ca…

I wonder if that voyeuristic use case is good for people/society. People used to naturally fade from each other's lives, maybe you saw each other in the street if you stayed in the same area, you could ask them about their life in person. If you were closer friends, they'd show you the photos of their wedding or vacation when you visited for dinner or hung out.

Even in the early version, these life updates became a competition of who has the fancier wedding pics, who went to a trendy vacation spot this year etc., leading to an idealized picture of how the life of everyone else is going.

It's a bandaid on the lifestyle of having to move cities all the time and cutting connections. Seeing their life updates doesn't really keep the connection alive, it's an illusion.

Post reply on HN