What if men weren't allowed on Facebook?

Then there would be no general purpose discussions like there are on facebook, only discussions specific to the group that is allowed access. If you only let white people on a web site, it is going to become about white supremacy. If you only let women on a website, it is going to be about womens issues, etc.

Re: What if men weren't allowed on Facebook?

#6

Post by alex_duf » Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 10:44 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #3

Mumsnet? Pinterest? There are already women-only social networks, but as far as I know, no men-only.

There's a difference between segregation when you subscribe to a website and shared interests. I know males on pinterest.

Re: What if men weren't allowed on Facebook?

#7

Post by vonklaus » Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 10:45 PM UTC

I think this is a pretty bad idea for a company unless it is a total passion project. Let's leave aside the boys v girls mentality that is sure to spring up and just look at it as an objective business.

1. Social is insanely crowded, it is such a crowded space and most of the decent niches have been carved out already. Other networks provide nearly perfect substitutes and are already well established an populated.

2. You eliminated 50% of your potential market before launch.

3. Is having 2X chromosomes something that is going to bring people together.

4. This can only work as either an anonymous network (because people will likely just want great opinions from other women who they ALREADY DO NOT KNOW IRL) and that means men and trolls will flood it

OR

5. It has to be a Facebook like social network that really tries to get an actual identity, in which case it is competing with Facebook, which is tough.

I don't see this becoming a huge thing. Would be surprised if they get a million users even in like a few years.

Re: What if men weren't allowed on Facebook?

#8

Post by jiggy2011 » Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 10:50 PM UTC

vonklaus wrote: post #7

I think this is a pretty bad idea for a company unless it is a total passion project. Let's leave aside the boys v girls mentality that is sure to spring up and just look at it as an objective business. 1. Social is insanely crowded, it is such a crowded space and most of the decent niches have been carved out already. Other networks provide nearly perfect substitutes and are already well established an populated. 2.…

How about the service asking for a real identity but allowing validated users to post personal questions under psuedonames?

In terms of niches, the 2X chromosomes niche is much bigger than the programmer niche, but stack overflow is still successful.

Re: What if men weren't allowed on Facebook?

#9

Post by jimmyfw » Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 10:52 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #5

Then there would be no general purpose discussions like there are on facebook, only discussions specific to the group that is allowed access. If you only let white people on a web site, it is going to become about white supremacy. If you only let women on a website, it is going to be about womens issues, etc.

Correction: if you only let white people on a web site, then the members on that site will discuss anything they want to discuss (which certainly includes many many more topics aside from white supremacy), but the discussion will take place from the perspective of white culture and white values. There will be a greater chance of deeming other cultures irrelevant to the discussion or (most commonly) simply forgetting that these other cultures don't exist.

With that in mind, you have a logical hole in your statement "If you only let women on a website, it is going to be about womens issues, etc". Women.com will be about women's issues because it is currently being marketed to the general public as a place for women to discuss women's issues. It will not be about women's issues solely because women are allowed on the site. Women who aren't interested in what other women think about women's issues won't find this site very interesting. In general, women will discuss what they want to, where they want.

Re: What if men weren't allowed on Facebook?

#10

Post by vonklaus » Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 10:57 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #8

vonklaus wrote: post #7

I think this is a pretty bad idea for a company unless it is a total passion project. Let's leave aside the boys v girls mentality that is sure to spring up and just look at it as an objective business. 1. Social is insanely crowded, it is such a crowded space and most of the decent niches have been carved out already. Other networks provide nearly perfect substitutes and are already well established an populated. 2.…

How about the service asking for a real identity but allowing validated users to post personal questions under psuedonames? In terms of niches, the 2X chromosomes niche is much bigger than the programmer niche, but stack overflow is still successful.

I don't think that can really scale. How could you verify whether I am male or female without a reasonable amount of scrutiny, and then you are trusting them to keep your ID safe. In terms of the niche, that is my exact point. Maybe you are right, however I think the point of the niche is a small interconnected network of people who share one or a few traits deeply. SO is a bunch of people who are excited by one discipline and share knowledge surrounding it. Basically, being a woman probably has some idealogical overlap broadly, but it is a huge population to lump together. There will be conservatives, liberals, muslims, jews, christians, atheists, lawyers, people who have children, people who hate children, feminists, equalizes, stay-at-home moms, etc. The point is, people can connect on a lot of these levels but the narrower the focus the more tight the bond, IMO.