11 ms·
The Secret to Better Social Media? Fewer Friends
- neonate 9y agohttp://archive.is/Z7uIq http://archive.is/Z7uIq
- NetOpWibby 9y agoBlessed be
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- goatherders 9y agoThere have been apps in the past that limit friends. I've thought a bout a 2 person network for you and your partner as well as one with maybe 20 friends. As well as one where you only see updates from friends who include you in their 20 as well. But it breaks the financial model of running targeted ads so it wont work.
- aggie 9y agoSeems like targeting small groups could be a way to overcome the network effect of Facebook. Just convince a handful of friends to join. Maybe a free trial or freemium model would work?
- ReverseCold 9y ago> 2 person network for you and your partner Chat apps?
- goatherders 9y agoYeah but would be cool to have an area to share "stories," text messages, video calls, grocery lists, etc. Maybe there is money in integration wherein if my partner likes a Chanel purse on FB or Pinterest the partner app let's me know so I can buy it dir her.
- amvalo 9y agoOr... you could just have a conversation like normal people.
- Aditya_Garg 9y agoHe's saying more along the lines of having a social media profile (like Facebook) that represents 2 people.
- WatermelonApe 9y agoOr... you could just have a conversation like normal people.
- amvalo 9y agoThat actually doesn't seem to be what he's saying. "Share grocery lists." That's what a couple would share with each other, not to their other friends. > my partner likes a Chanel purse on FB or Pinterest the partner app let's me know And seriously, it sounds awful. This is how you expect technology to benefit humanity?
- goatherders 9y agoYes. And what's wrong with that? Until the brightest minds apply themselves to solving real problems the least they can do is solve small problems instead of making solutions for problems that dont exist.
- goatherders 9y agoOr you could kiss my ass and stop being snippy. Online interaction is not exclusive to conversation and intimacy. I dont have time or inclination (nor does she) to sit on the couch and say "look at this photo I took at lunch" or "what does next weeks evening calendar look like.." An app could solve that. Well.
- amvalo 9y ago
- textmode 9y ago"But it breaks the financial model of running targeted ads so it won't work." By "it", do you mean the software won't work? What if someone wrote the software to do this, it worked and he distributed it for free? To the entrepreneur, this perhaps is not interesting. Is it interesting to the user?
- goatherders 9y agoI mean that targeting ads comes from harvesting lots of info. If the only thing the data shows is a single relationship then it is an order of magnitude lesser than if you are pulling data from hundreds of relationships.
- textmode 9y agoCould this property be of interest to the user that wants communications free from advertising, e.g., if she understands that the "social network" architecture created by the users of the software is such that there is no incentive for ads. For example, if the software allows users to create many small groups all communicating separately, peer-to-peer, not aggregated into the same "network" via an enormous third party website.
- collyw 9y agoThe beauty of capitalism. You only get the stuff built that makes someone money, not the stuff that is genuinely useful. (Obviously there will be some overlap, but "most useful to the consumer" isn't always going to line up with "makes most money for the company").
- textmode 9y agoWhat if the "stuff" already exists? What if economics had no bearing on its creation?
- firasd 9y agoI've thought a WhatsApp equivalent for just families or even for specific events (like a wedding) would be cool. In addition to the regular chat window, there would be shared photos and so on. But I think the challenge is not the financial model, the problem is product/market fit. Path (founded by a former FB exec) tried for a few years to create an intimate social network but couldn't retain enough users to make the biz work.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dindumuffin 9y agoPath, Peach, Vero, Ello, I don't think we need another one to remind everybody that "intimate social networks" are a failed experiment. If someone wants to communicate within a small group, they are inclined to use group chat. Forget monetizing, first it's difficult to get users to stay on these platforms because: 1. Even if you get amazing press and hype, the churn rate can exceed your growth rate due to how limited the network effect is e.g. Peach and Vero. 2. People can already choose to unfollow celebrities and limit their friend groups on any existing social platform. It's simply a matter of willpower or creating an alternate account ala how "Finstagrams". 3. Celebrities and influencers are what drives growth to a platform. Donald brought Twitter tens of millions of new users. Hundreds of millions of guys use Instagram just to follow bikini models etc
- qznc 9y agoThere is no need to start as a social app. You could start as a to-do app. For example, if Todoist would add a persistent group chat to shared lists, it might replace the WhatsApp conversations with my wife. There are apps that are used in intimate settings. They can be made "social".
- fwn 9y ago
- blowski 9y agoThere was one for couples: https://www.fastcodesign.com/1669435/pair-a-social-networking-app-just-for-couples https://www.fastcodesign.com/1669435/pair-a-social-networkin...
- giancarlostoro 9y agoThere's a bunch. Even Avocado IO but some suffer from laggy chat. Once you got enough messages the app takes forever as it tries to download every single message. Skype has the same damn problem... Just sync the last 10 then slowly poll for the rest and poll the rest fully if I scroll up... Never understood why they did that.
- fluxsauce 9y agoI've found that casual chatrooms with a small group of friends is pretty effective at keeping in touch without the noise. There are many common options like Slack, IRC, Keybase, and others. The hardest choice is finding a technology folks can agree upon; convenience and inertia go a long way towards maintaining a successful chatroom.
- Fezzik 9y agoThat was one great thing about gchat when I was in grad school - everyone had gmail, so chatting was easy. I had a number of groups that I would chat with almost daily, even after graduating. That petered out over the years and, of course, once I departed from gmail stopped completely. The ubiquity was nice while it lasted though. I wish there was a client that was as universal that was not so invasive with unrelated personal information.
- mxuribe 9y agoYou should look to the matrix protocol. That will be your new friend. Now, the most popular - though of course NOT only - client is https://riot.im https://riot.im Its similar in concept to IRC - chat rooms and such, and its decentralized. The web and mobile client for riot are really awesome...but you mentioned about personal information, hey, the matrix folks actually have a server you can self-host...so there is really no personal info you need to share with anyone that you don't want. My small family and i use matrix (via riot.im), and it works well for us. I encourage you to give it a try. (Oh I didn't even mention the bridges to other platforms like gitter, irc, slack, etc. that matrix contributors develop...I honestly don't know why matrix has not crushed every other chat platform yet.) EDIT: To clarify, matrix-based platforms like riot.im are chat platforms not really what most might call "traditional social media/networks".
- marssaxman 9y agoI never even used gmail, but I have fond memories of google chat! It used to be my best way of keeping in touch with people. Not sure why people stopped using it; I imagine that maybe Google changed something about the gmail UI, or maybe it was because people started using phones instead of computers for email. In any case, it had all faded away naturally long before Google stopped supporting XMPP.
- IshKebab 9y agoIt would also help if Facebook let you hide shit content - shared posts, tags, memories etc. But noooo you can only "see less of this" which doesn't really do anything. I just ruthlessly unfollow people now. And ignore Facebook - WhatsApp has effectively replaced it.
- IIAOPSW 9y agoIts true. I have no friends on hn and hn is my best "social media"
- jph 9y agoMany tech people want a better social network plan. I'm asking for opinions and advice here: https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/social_network_plan https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/social_network_plan The repo looks at issues of purpose, funding, audience, identity, topology, implementation, a MVP, and more.
- remir 9y agoAs alternative to Fb, there's MeWe and Vero. Both of them will not display ads and mine user info.
- amelius 9y agoAre you trying to create yet another open social network like Mastodon? That would mean more standards we have to choose from, and isn't the effect exactly the opposite of what you want to achieve, i.e. more barriers in communication?
- jph 9y ago> Are you trying to create yet another open social network like Mastodon? No because Mastodon is solely a decentralized network and is self-described as for microblogging. My research interest includes possibilities for centralized networks (more akin to Wikipedia and Craigslist) and more kinds of sharing (more akin to Dropbox and Slack).
- swayvil 9y agoWe might stretch that to The secret to better politics : fewer citizens. Which is a little bleak.
- sp527 9y agoFewer ignorant citizens* If you keep the ignorance distribution stable, then nothing changes.
- fwn 9y ago...which is a pretty popular and persistent idea in social sciences and loosely links to cultural capital.
- swayvil 9y agoMy point is, a smaller system is a more easily managed system for everybody involved. You don't even need to "educate" them. It might be enough to judge a prospective leader's character.
- illustrioussuit 9y agoThis is one thing I think Google+ got right. I can have different types of “friends”, each in their own categories, such as “sharaholic” or “meme poster” and only visit those circles occasionally. The only problem is the unpopularity of G+.
- kostarelo 9y agoFacebook has also Friends lists which pretty much the same functionality if Im not mistaken.
- aembleton 9y agoBut it's not as easy to use. One of the things that I'd like with the friends list is to include one list inside another. When I add a friend to the sub list, it should then automatically appear in the parent list. For example, I have a list of friends who are into hiking that live nearby. I also have a list of friends that are into hiking who live all over the world and another list of those who just live nearby. What I want to do is add a friend to the list of friends who are into hiking that live nearby and have them automatically added to the other two lists.
- adamnemecek 9y agothe problem with this model that sometimes the meme poster posts something that's not a meme and that's super relevant to you that you might not see.
- dindumuffin 9y agoWell now we need an algorithm that will make sure a relevant and engaging post gets sent to the top of your feed.
- jerkstate 9y agoI have a different algorithm, it's called "anti-fomo"
- presidentender 9y agoOriginally, I used facebook in some weird, dystopian and usually ineffective courtship ritual. Then I used it to keep in touch with distant friends, which is the stated use case, but actually isn't that interesting, but would have been well-served by curating my friends list. Lately, I moved to San Francisco and started doing stand-up comedy. Facebook is the single best tool for self-promotion and for finding out where good open mics and shows are. Both goals are served by adding randomly every single person I meet, not by curating my list.
- joncrane 9y agoHow's your stand-up career going?
- presidentender 9y agoIt's in its infancy. I've done one showcase, but mostly just open mics. I realize the above comment may have implied that comedy is my job - it's not, but it's the primary appeal Facebook has for me now.
- textmode 9y ago"Social network" vs "Social media" It is arguable that the primary purpose of Facebook originally was to allow two friends to communicate over a third person's website. There was no "news feed". Is this a "social network" or is it "social media"? Later the website became a means to broadcast "news". Is it a "social network" or is it "social media"? Later the website became a means for third parties other than Facebook to broadcast advertisements to specific users of the "network". Is it a "social network" or is it "social media"? Why might this distinction matter? This is a quote from Van Jacobsen's 30 August 2006 tech talk entitled "A new way to think about networking": "The raison d'etre of today's networking, both circuit switched and TCP/IP, is to allow two machines to have a conversation. The overwhelming use (>99% by most measurements) of today's networks is for a machine to acquire named chunks of data (like webpages or email messages). Acquiring named chunks of data is not a conversation, it's a dissemination (the computer equivalent of "Does anybody have the time?")" What is Facebook? Is it particular communications between two friends? Is it a "network"? Is it dissemination? Is it "media"? Is it both? Does Facebook communication between friends upset the traditional media? Does it "threaten democracy"? Does Facebook dissemination upset the traditional media? Does it "threaten democracy"? The tech talk cited above discusses why in the case of dissemination the data matters, not the supplier. In the case of dissemination it is desirable that data being disseminated must be trustworthy. Once this is achieved it should not matter the source from which the reader obtains it (whether via a Facebook page being surveilled by Facebook, or via some random address elsewhere on the internet). The talk describes how this might be accomplished.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- simonsarris 9y agoPrivate slacks, private google groups, private and close knit email lists will always make for better sharing and discussion. I suppose by their nature they're much smaller too. The one thing social media could do very well that these cannot, but still consistently fails at, for some reason, is discovery. How do I find the other literati nearby? How do I know who the next great addition to the secret slack might be?
- collyw 9y agoI actually find Facebook reasonable for that (though I am trying to quit). There are pages for relatively niche groups in your city or country.
- u801e 9y ago> Private slacks, private google groups, private and close knit email lists will always make for better sharing and discussion. I found the same thing on usenet years ago, and it was much more discoverable compared to the private options you mention. But I did need to use some degree of client side filtering to handle the junk that would be posted.
- petercooper 9y agoI've unfollowed most real people on Facebook as it's all about the interest or location-oriented groups for me rather than pictures of people's kids or vacations. It's so much better this way.
- collyw 9y agoSo the accounts most likely to target you with ads? Sounds great!
- petercooper 9y agoNo. Facebook groups are different to "pages" which do target you. They're relatively open, free for all discussion areas, a little akin to newsgroups back in the day if you're on the right ones.
- riantogo 9y agoHow many are few? Because messaging apps work that way (chat groups) and most groups with over ~10 people is a tsunami of terrible jokes and fake news. What works though is creating temporary groups around events (trips, concerts etc.)
- BeetleB 9y agoI'm way ahead of everyone. I'm on Diaspora, and I have 0 friends.
- GSimon 9y agoCreate a new Facebook and just add the people you've talked to recently and get message notifications from your old account sent to your e-mail. It's like getting a new phone number and only informing recent contacts.
- remarkEon 9y agoEhh I’m not convinced. I deleted my Facebook a long time ago (hard delete, not just a deactivation) and I’ve managed to replicate the same value I got from Facebook in Slacks and Discords - except it’s just stuff I want, and people I want to hear from. When some congressmen asked Zuckerberg about monopoly, I thought this: I actually think there are plenty of alternatives. I derive a lot more value from the Slack channels I’m on with friends who are now lawyers or tech gurus or thinking about doing a startup...and none of it is interrupted by ads or annoying posts from my parents and their friends. If the point here is “delete most of your ‘friends’” then why keep Facebook at all?
- sdrothrock 9y ago> except it’s just stuff I want, and people I want to hear from. Part of the value of Facebook for me is the opposite of this -- stuff I don't want, sometimes from people I don't want to hear from. It pops the bubble (which I'm VERY much covered by as an expat in Japan) and keeps my mind flexible while reminding me that other people think/believe different things, usually for reasons that make a lot of sense to them. Yes, I think a concentrated community like a Slack channel is a great way to stay in touch with people, but it's usually so ultra-focused that when I focus on communities like that, I can really see/feel my worldview and perspective narrowing to the one I use every day for communicating with them.
- remarkEon 9y agoI agree with you, that concentrating your worldview can become a problem. But at least now I’m doing it intentionally, and I don’t have Facebook’s algorithm doing it for me. Or, in the opposite, exposing me to things I don’t like just to get me to engage with it.
- stinos 9y agoexcept it’s just stuff I want ... why keep Facebook at all FB can do this, or at least close enough for me.. I mainly have it for chatting with certain friends (the chat UI is pretty terrible, but unlike IRC/Slack/Discord/... the percentage of people I know using it is extremely high), and to keep track of events from bands and other organizations. And it's fairly ok for that and there aren't really all-in-one alternatives for tracking bands imo.
- ghostcluster 9y agoaka private group chats
- naskwo 9y agoI think that ephemeral WhatsApp groups add a lot of value here. <plug> And if you'd like persistent, private photo/video sharing, a site like www.famipix.com fits the bill.</end plug)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mter 9y agoThe secret isn't fewer friends, it's only having actual friends on social media and not following/friending random people. My facebook feed is usually things I care about as a result. Except for 1 guy, who is a great guy but I don't need to see another sad dog who needs a home or missing child article.