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

We accidentally recreated old Facebook

amrshawky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: We accidentally recreated old Facebook

#41

Post by keane »

amr_shawky wrote: post #18
tim-projects wrote: post #15

As a none American I point out that WhatsApp groups have functionally replaced old Facebook for a long time.

I completely agree, my only issue with WhatsApp is that when I get a message, I need to read it immediately and its 50/50 whether its important or just a random link to something. For me at least, the reason Instagram messages work is I can ignore the notification because I know its definitely not important and just something funny to look at later.

This is an issue. iMessage needs a way for a group thread to be set and labeled as low-priority collectively and preemptively (not just individuals muting the thread).

My friends and I have silly group threads but they fizzle out fairly quickly because everyone is worried I think that they could be bothering people during the workday with a rather high-priority notification.

Instagram is better, like you say, because we can absorb the links and gifs passively.

Re: We accidentally recreated old Facebook

#42

Post by shawn_w »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #34
andrepd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on... "Chronological feed of your friend's posts" and "algorithmic mix of your follows, paid content, and shit optimised to keep you engaged" are two VERY different beasts. This is why Facebook of 2008 is different from Facebook/instagram/etc of 2026, not because the people or communities were somehow different.

Once Facebook removed "chronological" as a feed option I was less engaged. I couldn't connect with my people meaningfully anymore.

I don't even see most of my friends posts until a few weeks later. It completely kills any way to meaningfully keep up with them via Facebook.

Lots and lots of thinly disguised ads, though.

Re: We accidentally recreated old Facebook

#43

Post by thaumasiotes »

Izkata wrote: post #24
thaumasiotes wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Features of Old Facebook: - It's a photo album. Anyone who can view your page can see your photos. - You can also post status updates. - It publishes a list of your friends. Anyone is free to check that out. - Your friends can write on your wall, where anyone can see what they wrote. - It publishes your biographical data: where you go (or went) to school, where you work, whether you're single, and if not what kind of…

"Groups" is New Facebook, the replacement for the Network pages. Used to be there was a whole section of the site meant for connecting with people at the same college/university as you, that you were automatically included in based on your email domain. It had a calendar and events and was geared towards real-world interaction.

> "Groups" is New Facebook, the replacement for the Network pages.

"Groups" is 2004. Their domain was still "thefacebook.com".

Re: We accidentally recreated old Facebook

#44

Post by thaumasiotes »

butler14 wrote: post #23
thaumasiotes wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Features of Old Facebook: - It's a photo album. Anyone who can view your page can see your photos. - You can also post status updates. - It publishes a list of your friends. Anyone is free to check that out. - Your friends can write on your wall, where anyone can see what they wrote. - It publishes your biographical data: where you go (or went) to school, where you work, whether you're single, and if not what kind of…

All the bits that matter, I guess

Which are...?

Re: We accidentally recreated old Facebook

#45

Post by Ntrails »

brenschluss wrote: post #9

Ah, see, you didn’t recreate it just because of the interface; you recreated because it’s currently a high-trust social environment, because your friends and family are using it, because they know who you are. Old Facebook was high-trust because we all were naive and trusting. Perhaps the question is how to continue to create high-trust environments from a social perspective, not an interface perspective.

> because your friends and family are using it

No. My family was _not_ using it. The people who attended the same university were. Some of the change was when everyone had to moderate their output for different social contexts/audiences.

Re: We accidentally recreated old Facebook

#46

Post by Izkata »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #43
Izkata wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Groups" is New Facebook, the replacement for the Network pages. Used to be there was a whole section of the site meant for connecting with people at the same college/university as you, that you were automatically included in based on your email domain. It had a calendar and events and was geared towards real-world interaction.

> "Groups" is New Facebook, the replacement for the Network pages. "Groups" is 2004. Their domain was still "thefacebook.com".

You're thinking of something else, Groups didn't exist until 2010 (though I thought it was a bit earlier, like 2008 - I thought they came out about the same time the Network pages went away, while I was still in college): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/07/facebook-...

I do remember Friend Lists were much earlier though.

Re: We accidentally recreated old Facebook

#48

Post by thaumasiotes »

Izkata wrote: post #46
thaumasiotes wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Groups" is New Facebook, the replacement for the Network pages. "Groups" is 2004. Their domain was still "thefacebook.com".

You're thinking of something else, Groups didn't exist until 2010 (though I thought it was a bit earlier, like 2008 - I thought they came out about the same time the Network pages went away, while I was still in college): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/07/facebook-... I do remember Friend Lists were much earlier though.

> You're thinking of something else, Groups didn't exist until 2010

No, I'm not thinking of something else. You are assuming that when I say "groups", I'm thinking of the feature called "Facebook Groups" in your link, which is a stupid thing for you to assume.

Here's a preserved screenshot of a 2005 page: https://www.shareaholic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/...

See the link in the left-hand sidebar saying "My Groups"?

Post reply on HN