4 ms·

>I want a social network that encourages human interaction in the real world - not one that turns friends into enemies, feeds narcissism, and provides a platfor

>I want a social network that encourages human interaction in the real world - not one that turns friends into enemies, feeds narcissism, and provides a platform for corporations and hostile governments to spy on us and manipulate us. Well this is a site for startups. It seems like you have a good initial idea/problem and/or need. Now the next hard part is concieving and implementing a solution. There's peer-to-peer networks already though I doubt any of them will be a Facebook replacement. It does provide a solution in part to the spying and data mining (obviously whatever you decide to put out there is free to be harvested). So how do you encourage human interaction, perhaps meeting, and build constructive discussions? Unfortunately I'm afraid some of that might just be choosing to predominantly interact with people that are also like that. Although a technologal solution would still be valuable.

ashelmire 8y ago
> Well this is a site for startups. It seems like you have a good initial idea/problem and/or need. Now the next hard part is conceiving and implementing a solution. Aha, I'm already moving onto implementation. I've been thinking about this for a while. Maybe I'll be one of the next billionaires in tech ;-)
- iknowverylittle 8y ago
  Well you can give me your second billion after you make your first. That said, I don't know how you would monetize a system like that. Furthermore would you really want to? Seems to me part of Facebook's (and other popular social media platforms) growth is attracting advertisers with access to user data personalization. Consequencently this set up leads to people (at least geeks/nerds) boycotting or giving up on Facebook due to information mining and obnoxious advertising. Then those aforementioned nerds/geeks make something new that begins the cycle over again.
  - K0SM0S 8y ago
    > That said, I don't know how you would monetize a system like that. My personal intuition is that the simplest forms of communication (defined as exchanging data between two or more participants) shouldn't be _directly_ monetized. If we compare to physical communications means and services, there's an obvious yet powerful realization to make: communication is free (from any third-party) so long as it's distributed (i.e. when you and I talk, we take it upon ourselves to spend the energy required to communicate, we don't need a middleman), whereas it becomes a paid-for service when it's centralized (e.g. post office, telephone system, nowadays internet). Notice that in the physical world, most (centralized) communication businesses are monetizing a more-or-less public container, which operates as a black box for the (de facto) private content. — e.g. package, letter, phone conversation. Translate this into the digital world: email, file storage and exchange, chats and calls. So far, to my knowledge, most of the popular solutions have been centralized and therefore, monetized (notable exception are bittorrent or IRC, the protocols, widely used as a consequence, but rather nerdy to the general pop, which I think has to do with UX). Simply put there's a business behind most of the middlemen (Fb, Gmail, Skype…), few solutions rely strictly on tech that anyone can freely operate: you need that central server authentication to reach other users in the walled garden, and neither 'speaks' to others (can't use app X to speak to someone using app Y). Back to my personal intuition, there is an increasingly higher chance that someone comes up with a decentralized communication system wherein users each bear the cost/energy required to communicate, based on a free protocol (as in beer, it needs not be OSS, although probably should for security/trust purposes). Think Bittorrent for data specific to communication. The internet in itself, with requests being free (POST GET etc), is such an example of a distributed architecture which you enter simply by leveraging the correct tech; there is no gatekeeper. Blockchains might be another good example of distributed systems (even ignoring cryptocurrencies and focusing on the distributed database tech). It's a general trend, I think, that we progressively massively distribute technology-based services starting with the most fundamental, the closest to "first principles" for the purpose. Think about printing, how it started with Gutenberg, what a single individual can do today. It takes decades, centuries, these are deeper trend. However, as fast as things go in this day and age, I think communication is just about to be disrupted _forever_ by virtue of massively distributing the means. Just like printers. Or file exchange.

ashelmire 8y ago

> Well this is a site for startups. It seems like you have a good initial idea/problem and/or need. Now the next hard part is conceiving and implementing a solution. Aha, I'm already moving onto implementation. I've been thinking about this for a while. Maybe I'll be one of the next billionaires in tech ;-)

iknowverylittle 8y ago
Well you can give me your second billion after you make your first. That said, I don't know how you would monetize a system like that. Furthermore would you really want to? Seems to me part of Facebook's (and other popular social media platforms) growth is attracting advertisers with access to user data personalization. Consequencently this set up leads to people (at least geeks/nerds) boycotting or giving up on Facebook due to information mining and obnoxious advertising. Then those aforementioned nerds/geeks make something new that begins the cycle over again.
- K0SM0S 8y ago
  > That said, I don't know how you would monetize a system like that. My personal intuition is that the simplest forms of communication (defined as exchanging data between two or more participants) shouldn't be _directly_ monetized. If we compare to physical communications means and services, there's an obvious yet powerful realization to make: communication is free (from any third-party) so long as it's distributed (i.e. when you and I talk, we take it upon ourselves to spend the energy required to communicate, we don't need a middleman), whereas it becomes a paid-for service when it's centralized (e.g. post office, telephone system, nowadays internet). Notice that in the physical world, most (centralized) communication businesses are monetizing a more-or-less public container, which operates as a black box for the (de facto) private content. — e.g. package, letter, phone conversation. Translate this into the digital world: email, file storage and exchange, chats and calls. So far, to my knowledge, most of the popular solutions have been centralized and therefore, monetized (notable exception are bittorrent or IRC, the protocols, widely used as a consequence, but rather nerdy to the general pop, which I think has to do with UX). Simply put there's a business behind most of the middlemen (Fb, Gmail, Skype…), few solutions rely strictly on tech that anyone can freely operate: you need that central server authentication to reach other users in the walled garden, and neither 'speaks' to others (can't use app X to speak to someone using app Y). Back to my personal intuition, there is an increasingly higher chance that someone comes up with a decentralized communication system wherein users each bear the cost/energy required to communicate, based on a free protocol (as in beer, it needs not be OSS, although probably should for security/trust purposes). Think Bittorrent for data specific to communication. The internet in itself, with requests being free (POST GET etc), is such an example of a distributed architecture which you enter simply by leveraging the correct tech; there is no gatekeeper. Blockchains might be another good example of distributed systems (even ignoring cryptocurrencies and focusing on the distributed database tech). It's a general trend, I think, that we progressively massively distribute technology-based services starting with the most fundamental, the closest to "first principles" for the purpose. Think about printing, how it started with Gutenberg, what a single individual can do today. It takes decades, centuries, these are deeper trend. However, as fast as things go in this day and age, I think communication is just about to be disrupted _forever_ by virtue of massively distributing the means. Just like printers. Or file exchange.