4 ms·

That is true. Which is why the alternative needs to be grass-roots, good enough, and not for profit. It has to be a mission, rather than a corporation. I am cur

• jschwartzi 7y ago
  It will also have to be something cool and exclusive for a while, and not something your dad is allowed to use. That's the thing these "new social networking platforms" are missing: the original cachet of Facebook was that you could only get on it if you had a .edu email address like you would if you were in college. It was cool because college students were on it, sharing their very similar college experiences with each other and basically using it to hook up. Tinder worked very well for 20-somethings as well because they had figured out that 20-somethings are usually not looking for a deep, meaningful relationship right out of the gate. So they required you to tell your story in pictures, and they eliminated the 3000-word deep and meaningful profiles that people still dating in their 30s and 40s are using. So it almost immediately excluded your dad from using it. And it had a lot of cachet because of that exclusivity. The thing that made Google+ not cool was that its major enthusiasts were the kind of insufferable tech dweebs that would take pictures of themselves wearing Google Glass in the shower with their Pixel phone. That's very much a dad thing to do, and it's the wrong kind of exclusivity. So if we want a really good social network to replace Facebook, it has to A) not be full of insufferable tech dweebs, and B) be exclusive by way of not being full of parents on day 1. I'm certainly too old to start something meeting those requirements.