5 ms·

Google takes another run at social networking with Shoelace

12 points by munchor 7y ago

hmhrex 7y ago
I actually like the idea of this type of hyper-local "social networking", but I think my fear of it being run by Google is valid. I would love to see another company do well at this, but I'll be skipping over Google's iteration.
- sli 7y ago
  I'm not sure how good Nextdoor actually is, but it's another "hyper-local" social network.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I’ve only heard that it is only used by people in the same neighborhood to talk about people “who don’t belong there”.
    - Fins 7y ago
      It's actually quite useful for "hey, did you see my dog?" or "do you know what happened at ... last night?" things. But being a social network (so basically, evil by definition) you do get a worrying amount of "these people look weird here" , political fights and other BS that comes weith the social network territory.
anoncake 7y ago
> Shoelace is currently in an invite-only testing phase So Google is using their proven method of building a social network. It's proven to not work, mind you, but it's proven. Are there any reasons why Google might be doing this apart from broken incentive structures?
- corin_ 7y ago
  How is it proven not to work just because one or more times it hasn't worked, especially with an example as notable as Facebook on the other side? There are pros and cons for sure, and perhaps you're right that on balance the cons outweigh the pros, but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    AFAIK Facebook didn't restrict its user base by giving out limited invites but by only admitting certain groups (initially, Harvard students). That's a very different thing. In any case, the world was quite different back then. Facebook didn't have take on Facebook. Still, "proven" is too strong a statement, this isn't mathematics. > but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all. Not everything is a statement of an opinion. Sometimes a question mark indicates a question.
    - corin_ 7y ago
      You're right about how Facebook did it, but I'd describe it as a pedantically different thing, not a very different thing. It's just a different method of artificially restricting who can sign up. And to your edit: "It's proven to not work" seems like a statement, and it's the statement I was responding to. Had you simply asked the question about whether it's a good idea I wouldn't have written my response.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        "Proven" was hyperbole, sorry. I think the difference is significant: Facebook was a place for Harvard students to communicate with other Harvard students. That is useful. Google+ was a place where you could communicate with a random subset of your friends and acquaintances. That's mostly useless. For one-to-one communication it's okay, but a social network is also about group discussions and broadcasting.
- whydoineedthis 7y ago
  Yeah, Gmail was such a flop. Orkut also comes to mind, although they botched/killed that for different reasons.
scarface74 7y ago
Why join a “hyper local network” when everyone is already on Facebook and you can just make a Facebook Group?
- devoply 7y ago
  Because you prefer Google's spying over FB apparently.
- w3rhn2j34oh5o 7y ago
  'everyone'. Ive never used FB in my life, and never will. More people are ditching ZuckNet every day because it is so awful. Good to have alternatives.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Well despite your anecdote, the actual numbers disagree with you. A few geeks staying off Facebook is about as relevant as the “I don’t own a TV” crowd.
    - w3rhn2j34oh5o 7y ago
      I just don't understand why on earth would anyone defend this platform. Yeah I don't own a TV either. Enjoy your zuckbucks!
      - anoncake 7y ago
        They aren't defending it, they say people are using it. Which is a very different thing from Facebook being good.
    - AlchemistCamp 7y ago
      If you've owned one for decades that might make sense, but why would I buy a device that shows me what various media companies choose to provide at each given hour instead of watching what I want, when I want? We're decades into the web.
wakupsheeple 7y ago
> listing your interests in the app, allowing it to recommend a series of “hand-picked” local activities Okay Google, no thanks. Do we need someone at Google reading our interests and hand picking social events for us?
wakupsheeple 7y ago
> “hand-picked” local activities I wonder what the team's process is for hand picking local activities.

12 points by munchor 7y ago

I actually like the idea of this type of hyper-local "social networking", but I think my fear of it being run by Google is valid. I would love to see another company do well at this, but I'll be skipping over Google's iteration.

sli 7y ago
I'm not sure how good Nextdoor actually is, but it's another "hyper-local" social network.
- scarface74 7y ago
  I’ve only heard that it is only used by people in the same neighborhood to talk about people “who don’t belong there”.
  - Fins 7y ago
    It's actually quite useful for "hey, did you see my dog?" or "do you know what happened at ... last night?" things. But being a social network (so basically, evil by definition) you do get a worrying amount of "these people look weird here" , political fights and other BS that comes weith the social network territory.

anoncake 7y ago

> Shoelace is currently in an invite-only testing phase So Google is using their proven method of building a social network. It's proven to not work, mind you, but it's proven. Are there any reasons why Google might be doing this apart from broken incentive structures?

corin_ 7y ago
How is it proven not to work just because one or more times it hasn't worked, especially with an example as notable as Facebook on the other side? There are pros and cons for sure, and perhaps you're right that on balance the cons outweigh the pros, but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all.
- anoncake 7y ago
  AFAIK Facebook didn't restrict its user base by giving out limited invites but by only admitting certain groups (initially, Harvard students). That's a very different thing. In any case, the world was quite different back then. Facebook didn't have take on Facebook. Still, "proven" is too strong a statement, this isn't mathematics. > but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all. Not everything is a statement of an opinion. Sometimes a question mark indicates a question.
  - corin_ 7y ago
    You're right about how Facebook did it, but I'd describe it as a pedantically different thing, not a very different thing. It's just a different method of artificially restricting who can sign up. And to your edit: "It's proven to not work" seems like a statement, and it's the statement I was responding to. Had you simply asked the question about whether it's a good idea I wouldn't have written my response.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      "Proven" was hyperbole, sorry. I think the difference is significant: Facebook was a place for Harvard students to communicate with other Harvard students. That is useful. Google+ was a place where you could communicate with a random subset of your friends and acquaintances. That's mostly useless. For one-to-one communication it's okay, but a social network is also about group discussions and broadcasting.
whydoineedthis 7y ago
Yeah, Gmail was such a flop. Orkut also comes to mind, although they botched/killed that for different reasons.

scarface74 7y ago

Why join a “hyper local network” when everyone is already on Facebook and you can just make a Facebook Group?

devoply 7y ago
Because you prefer Google's spying over FB apparently.
w3rhn2j34oh5o 7y ago
'everyone'. Ive never used FB in my life, and never will. More people are ditching ZuckNet every day because it is so awful. Good to have alternatives.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Well despite your anecdote, the actual numbers disagree with you. A few geeks staying off Facebook is about as relevant as the “I don’t own a TV” crowd.
  - w3rhn2j34oh5o 7y ago
    I just don't understand why on earth would anyone defend this platform. Yeah I don't own a TV either. Enjoy your zuckbucks!
    - anoncake 7y ago
      They aren't defending it, they say people are using it. Which is a very different thing from Facebook being good.
  - AlchemistCamp 7y ago
    If you've owned one for decades that might make sense, but why would I buy a device that shows me what various media companies choose to provide at each given hour instead of watching what I want, when I want? We're decades into the web.

wakupsheeple 7y ago

> listing your interests in the app, allowing it to recommend a series of “hand-picked” local activities Okay Google, no thanks. Do we need someone at Google reading our interests and hand picking social events for us?

wakupsheeple 7y ago

> “hand-picked” local activities I wonder what the team's process is for hand picking local activities.