5 ms·

Just my guess, but I bet that from this point on, few people (in the developed world) will race to sign up for a new social network. Why? Given the societal an

by danans 7y ago

Just my guess, but I bet that from this point on, few people (in the developed world) will race to sign up for a new social network. Why? Given the societal and personal costs (and benefits) that we've seen with previous social networks, a lot of lay people are re-evaluating the utility that such services provide them. In many cases, the answer is to keep your current social network, but increasingly disengage from it. Sometimes people find that they actually prefer to be less frequently "connected" to people in their lives, whether family/friends or casual acquaintances, especially given some of the caustic personality traits often displayed on social networks. Also, many of today's recent non-FB social network successes (Whatsapp, etc) were launched before the general perception of social networking, and internet services in general, became increasingly skeptical. Outside of tech, or people with very narrow interest verticals not served by mainstream social networks, I don't know anyone who is looking for yet another generic social network. Curiously, if true, this plays both the the detriment and benefit of established social networks: their primary, most profitable users are not likely to flee, but they are also likely to be less engaged.

lucideer 7y ago
The likes of TikTok would disprove this guess, but given the age profile, your theory may still hold true if age-range-bound.
- cumwolf 7y ago
  TikTok is a great example of people being willing to join new social media but it's a niche social media app compared to fb/twitter... and in a lot of ways fills a void that Vine left, so i agree but think it's kind of an exception right now
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    A lot of people have been throwing up Mastodon/Pleroma/Fediverse on this thread and I think, like TikTok, you're going after a different segment: randos you don't know. Mastodon/Fediverse instances feel like a nice big random AOL chat room, or Reddit threads in the Twitter format. It won't connect you to your current social groups (except the very few who are like 'Yea I'm on that. Here, follow me), but rather help you exchange ideas with a bunch of randos. Which is something that was pretty damn cool about the early Internet really.
GetOutOfBed 7y ago
I agree that people aren't looking for new social networks, but I do wonder about your view of disengaging from Facebook. I keep reading about it on HN but I'm not seeing it myself. I wonder if it's a US-centric view.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  It's certainly becoming a more and more popular perspective with my demographic (20-something's in the UK). Most people haven't quite checked out just yet, but mainly use facebook for messenger and events, and are generally becoming: 1. Disengaged with the platform 2. Concerned about how much it knows about our lives In the last few months, I've seen this go from something that only techies cared about to an increasingly mainstream point of view.
  - danans 7y ago
    > 1. Disengaged with the platform 2. Concerned about how much it knows about our lives Disengagement is an effect, not a cause, but I'd argue that the primary cause of disengagement is that the balance of dopamine increasing "happy" social networking experiences vs neutral or anger inducing negative experiences on social networks has shifted to the neutral/negative. Even on the "happy" side, there's only so many recycled life-affirming aphorisms, or happy photos from other peoples' lives you can see in your newsfeed before you start to tune them out. On the negative side, produced content on social networks has turned toward the increasingly attention-grabbing, and occasionally even psychologically injurious. So if the happy stuff isn't making you so happy anymore, and you tire of the negative stuff, what do you do? Disengage.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  According to Pew research, Facebook usage in the US has been flat since 2016, neither gaining nor losing overall. However, the age breakdown of those users has changed a lot. Facebook has absolutely hemorrhaged users younger than about 45. The majority of American FB users are in the 46-76 year old range now, with 68% of US FB users aged 50 or older. In the US, anyway, Facebook is for old farts and businesses.
halbritt 7y ago
I have a fairly large network of friends that existed before FB really had wide adoption. The platform they were on eventually died in favor of facebook. At this point, I'd like to preserve that network of friends independent of facebook and most of those folks feel similarly. In that sense, there is at least some demand for a social network that isn't evil.
- realbarack 7y ago
  I feel the same. I find social networks pretty valuable but don't like or trust Facebook. I'd happily sign up (and pay for) a social network that brought the same benefits but was (1.) ad-free and (2.) didn't employ tons of people trying to maximize my engagement.
  - jeena 7y ago
    Then check out https://joinmastodon.org/ https://joinmastodon.org/ you can either host it yourself or join someone else's server where you can either pay/donate or just use it for free.
    - devinjflick 7y ago
      So mastondon is an open source twitter clone right? is there anything out there yet or in the works that is more in line with Facebook's product offerings with out the surveillance and tracking?
      - jeena 7y ago
        Kind of, Mastodon is the 'Twitter' part of the fediverse, PeerTube is the 'YouTube' part, Pixelfed is the 'Instagram' part, there are even people who try to use ActivityPub for things you do on GitHub normally. And you can follow and interact between all of them (theoretically and to some degree actually too). But what you're looking for sounds mostly like Diaspora, which is quite old, it's from back in the Google+ days, and never really took off.
xwdv 7y ago
There is an exception to this. A lot of people race to sign up on new networks to secure valuable and limited usernames or urls early in case the network does become a big deal someday.
- danans 7y ago
  I think this is a tiny number of people, but even then, how would an early username or URL on a hypothetically successful new social network benefit you anyway? Unless you are already a "big deal" yourself for other reasons, a particular username on a social network isn't going to turn you in to one. Whatever one might think about social network "influencers", their influence is ultimately rooted in something about them (looks, charisma, knowledge, marketing dept strategy), not their username.
KoftaBob 7y ago
The way other social media platforms have solved this problem is by targeting younger demographics first, those that are making social media accounts for the first time. For these "greenfield" users, there is no need to convince their friends to leave their existing social media platform, because there is none. Every day, middle schoolers get smartphones for the first time, and the majority of them probably aren't going to make Facebook accounts, but rather Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok, etc.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  I can see the future: "Are you on Facebook?" "My mom setup an account for me when I was 5, but I never use it. I don't even think I installed it on this phone..."
Finnucane 7y ago
At least on my FB feed (which is indeed becoming less full over time), at least once a week someone will raise the question of 'is there anywhere to go after Facebook?' So at least some people are looking.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
katzgrau 7y ago
> I don't know anyone who is looking for yet another generic social network. Right — people don't go actively seeking a generic alternative to something they already have. They do although, hear about new services that do something different. Similar to TikTok, or Instagram, it will hit on a niche interest and expand from there. The current market leaders will ignore it long enough (opportunity not big enough) that by the time they see it as a threat, it's too late.
dimino 7y ago
I think faking growth until you achieve actual growth is the time-honored tradition of social media websites, and can flip a failure into a success by getting people to feel that, "Am I missing out?" feeling again. I don't think WT:Social is doing that right now though, so not sure what their plan is to combat what you're talking about.
2sk21 7y ago
You may be right but I went ahead and signed up for wt.social and paid for a year's subscription. Who knows - maybe something interesting will come from this.

by danans 7y ago

lucideer 7y ago

The likes of TikTok would disprove this guess, but given the age profile, your theory may still hold true if age-range-bound.

cumwolf 7y ago
TikTok is a great example of people being willing to join new social media but it's a niche social media app compared to fb/twitter... and in a lot of ways fills a void that Vine left, so i agree but think it's kind of an exception right now
- djsumdog 7y ago
  A lot of people have been throwing up Mastodon/Pleroma/Fediverse on this thread and I think, like TikTok, you're going after a different segment: randos you don't know. Mastodon/Fediverse instances feel like a nice big random AOL chat room, or Reddit threads in the Twitter format. It won't connect you to your current social groups (except the very few who are like 'Yea I'm on that. Here, follow me), but rather help you exchange ideas with a bunch of randos. Which is something that was pretty damn cool about the early Internet really.

GetOutOfBed 7y ago

I agree that people aren't looking for new social networks, but I do wonder about your view of disengaging from Facebook. I keep reading about it on HN but I'm not seeing it myself. I wonder if it's a US-centric view.

nicoburns 7y ago
It's certainly becoming a more and more popular perspective with my demographic (20-something's in the UK). Most people haven't quite checked out just yet, but mainly use facebook for messenger and events, and are generally becoming: 1. Disengaged with the platform 2. Concerned about how much it knows about our lives In the last few months, I've seen this go from something that only techies cared about to an increasingly mainstream point of view.
- danans 7y ago
  > 1. Disengaged with the platform 2. Concerned about how much it knows about our lives Disengagement is an effect, not a cause, but I'd argue that the primary cause of disengagement is that the balance of dopamine increasing "happy" social networking experiences vs neutral or anger inducing negative experiences on social networks has shifted to the neutral/negative. Even on the "happy" side, there's only so many recycled life-affirming aphorisms, or happy photos from other peoples' lives you can see in your newsfeed before you start to tune them out. On the negative side, produced content on social networks has turned toward the increasingly attention-grabbing, and occasionally even psychologically injurious. So if the happy stuff isn't making you so happy anymore, and you tire of the negative stuff, what do you do? Disengage.
JohnFen 7y ago
According to Pew research, Facebook usage in the US has been flat since 2016, neither gaining nor losing overall. However, the age breakdown of those users has changed a lot. Facebook has absolutely hemorrhaged users younger than about 45. The majority of American FB users are in the 46-76 year old range now, with 68% of US FB users aged 50 or older. In the US, anyway, Facebook is for old farts and businesses.

halbritt 7y ago

I have a fairly large network of friends that existed before FB really had wide adoption. The platform they were on eventually died in favor of facebook. At this point, I'd like to preserve that network of friends independent of facebook and most of those folks feel similarly. In that sense, there is at least some demand for a social network that isn't evil.

realbarack 7y ago
I feel the same. I find social networks pretty valuable but don't like or trust Facebook. I'd happily sign up (and pay for) a social network that brought the same benefits but was (1.) ad-free and (2.) didn't employ tons of people trying to maximize my engagement.
- jeena 7y ago
  Then check out https://joinmastodon.org/ https://joinmastodon.org/ you can either host it yourself or join someone else's server where you can either pay/donate or just use it for free.
  - devinjflick 7y ago
    So mastondon is an open source twitter clone right? is there anything out there yet or in the works that is more in line with Facebook's product offerings with out the surveillance and tracking?
    - jeena 7y ago
      Kind of, Mastodon is the 'Twitter' part of the fediverse, PeerTube is the 'YouTube' part, Pixelfed is the 'Instagram' part, there are even people who try to use ActivityPub for things you do on GitHub normally. And you can follow and interact between all of them (theoretically and to some degree actually too). But what you're looking for sounds mostly like Diaspora, which is quite old, it's from back in the Google+ days, and never really took off.

xwdv 7y ago

There is an exception to this. A lot of people race to sign up on new networks to secure valuable and limited usernames or urls early in case the network does become a big deal someday.

danans 7y ago
I think this is a tiny number of people, but even then, how would an early username or URL on a hypothetically successful new social network benefit you anyway? Unless you are already a "big deal" yourself for other reasons, a particular username on a social network isn't going to turn you in to one. Whatever one might think about social network "influencers", their influence is ultimately rooted in something about them (looks, charisma, knowledge, marketing dept strategy), not their username.

KoftaBob 7y ago

The way other social media platforms have solved this problem is by targeting younger demographics first, those that are making social media accounts for the first time. For these "greenfield" users, there is no need to convince their friends to leave their existing social media platform, because there is none. Every day, middle schoolers get smartphones for the first time, and the majority of them probably aren't going to make Facebook accounts, but rather Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok, etc.

djsumdog 7y ago
I can see the future: "Are you on Facebook?" "My mom setup an account for me when I was 5, but I never use it. I don't even think I installed it on this phone..."

Finnucane 7y ago

At least on my FB feed (which is indeed becoming less full over time), at least once a week someone will raise the question of 'is there anywhere to go after Facebook?' So at least some people are looking.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

katzgrau 7y ago

> I don't know anyone who is looking for yet another generic social network. Right — people don't go actively seeking a generic alternative to something they already have. They do although, hear about new services that do something different. Similar to TikTok, or Instagram, it will hit on a niche interest and expand from there. The current market leaders will ignore it long enough (opportunity not big enough) that by the time they see it as a threat, it's too late.

dimino 7y ago

I think faking growth until you achieve actual growth is the time-honored tradition of social media websites, and can flip a failure into a success by getting people to feel that, "Am I missing out?" feeling again. I don't think WT:Social is doing that right now though, so not sure what their plan is to combat what you're talking about.

2sk21 7y ago

You may be right but I went ahead and signed up for wt.social and paid for a year's subscription. Who knows - maybe something interesting will come from this.