7 ms·

If I was the co-founder of one of the top websites in the world that had to pivot from my shitty news organization into what looks like a shitty version of Dias

If I was the co-founder of one of the top websites in the world that had to pivot from my shitty news organization into what looks like a shitty version of Diaspora, I’m not so sure I’d be thrilled with “thousands.” You need network effects for social network rivals to take off. That isn’t to say there won’t be a Facebook successor (there almost certainly will be one — the big challenge for Facebook is if it has a piece of that or not), but just as Diaspora, Google+, Peach, Ello, App.net, Gab, Mastadon, and any other number of attempts at this have failed (calling Mastadon a failure is unfair, but its not Twitter and won’t ever be), so will this. Snap was a threat to Facebook’s core messaging properties (WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram), so Instagram had to blatantly copy Snap to win back momentum. Snap is still a thing, but unless it leans into the fact that it isn’t owned by Facebook (which is ultimately what hurts WA and Instagram), it isn’t ever going to catch-up, especially on a global level. TikTok has the sort of network effect Vine never had, and could be a real contender for the next generation, even with its ownership questions. Twitch and YouTube still have opportunities for growth — and there is still lots of room for innovation in the live video space. And look, maybe this will be a really nice niche community for a small group of people. I hope it is. I hope the people that signup and pay for it enjoy it. I hope Wales doesn’t get bored when it doesn’t have tons of users and make tons of money. There is a market for small community social networks. Not everything has to be the scale of Facebook — I’d argue it’s better when things aren’t that size — but let’s not pretend we’re not talking about this because it’s being positioned as something that is “taking on” the giant — when it would be more helpful - but make for a poorer headline/narrative - to say, “rich dude wants to recreate The Well for a generation of users who doesn’t know what The Well was.”

tomaszs 7y ago
A lots of this is true. I can only debate what networks need to have. Facebook became popular not because social effect but because it used "on behalf" emails to spam friends of users with optout error by design and because of automated scraping emails from an email account when user got lured to give login and password. Than it was new, now these things have special words to describe it.
Zenst 7y ago
Maybe, but then you have a different financial model being played out with it being subscritpion based and no small fee either. This changes how it can be marketed and the pyrimid approach would not supprise me in that once the subscriptions level of, they offer them referal links in which they get $1 a month for people subscribing via their link after their extended trial period of say 90 days. At least, that is what I would be looking at doing. Certainly the monthly fee is high, so what level they break even in running costs will be lower and may well be that they already break even in running and depreciation of assets -costs. May even be a small monthly profit already. We just don't know.
- incompatible 7y ago
  It would be a social network that excludes the poor and the frugal. It reminds me of a network that was created for the extreme rich, a few years ago. On searching for it, I find that there have been several such created: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/09/social-networks-for-millionaires.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/09/social-networks-for-... That was written in 2014, so perhaps there are more since then.
solarhoma 7y ago
Facebooks successor is Instagram. Unfortunately for us Zuckerberg bought Instagram.
iamnothere 7y ago
> Mastadon, and any other number of attempts at this have failed (calling Mastadon a failure is unfair, but its not Twitter and won’t ever be), so will this. Who says that success should be measured by Twitter? It may be that no other social network approaches Twitter and Facebook in size given their dominance, but that doesn't mean that there can be no other social networks. In my opinion, one-size-fits-all social was a mistake to begin with. Smaller niche spaces (like HN) are much more interesting. To think of it another way: did your favorite local bistro "fail" as a restaurant because it didn't become as large as McDonald's? Which one would you rather eat at?
- Bootwizard 7y ago
  Absolutely agree. I hate this trend of measuring success by comparing small products to massive bloated giants of tech. You don't have to get to that level to be a success, and you're honestly probably better off if you don't. Big social media companies are now seen as responsible for the destruction and compromise of democracy and have many more problems which wouldn't exist if they weren't so universally adopted. I hope the future is full of many smaller niche social media sites that cater to a smaller group instead of trying to appeal to everyone.
  - ReverseCold 7y ago
    The usefulness of a general "social network" is how many people it has. If I can't find almost everyone I know on it, and they are on a different platform (Facebook) it's easier for me to just use the other platform. People feel like they need it to keep in touch with others they don't see often (or even just others in general). I personally don't have any major social media accounts, just small ones like HN - but I understand why people feel the need to use larger ones.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mehhh 7y ago
      Are general social networks actually useful though? In mature markets, you have a huge chunk of people that have logged off Facebook permanently. What matters is the people I want to interact with, and in Seattle they are on Mastodon. Not everyone needs to be on it, and frankly if close to everyone were on it you'd potentially drive away a good subset of users. That being said, by design I can retain my feed of friends on Mastodon without fear of some corporation or eternal spring of new users wrecking it.
ISL 7y ago
I'm not sure that a large network is essential. A strong niche is. Owning the market in an influential niche can be enough. Facebook's rise came from universities. It seems unlikely that this particular new network will succeed, but if it provides value to a tight-knit set of users, it can plant roots and grow.
mycall 7y ago
> there is still lots of room for innovation in the live video space. I always thought human experiments online would be huge with combining live video space, experiment ideas, text chat and a reward system.
tyingq 7y ago
Isn't he controlling the throttle with limited "free" signups and the pricing to go around it? A assume he must be happy since he's controlling the growth rate. It's not clear how fast it would be growing without a throttle on "free".
_emacsomancer_ 7y ago
> (calling Mastadon a failure is unfair, but its not Twitter and won’t ever be), Likewise Facebook isn't Myspace and never will be. Does this mean Facebook is a failure?
tekknik 7y ago
it’s 160,000 in two days. that’s insane growth.

tomaszs 7y ago

A lots of this is true. I can only debate what networks need to have. Facebook became popular not because social effect but because it used "on behalf" emails to spam friends of users with optout error by design and because of automated scraping emails from an email account when user got lured to give login and password. Than it was new, now these things have special words to describe it.

Zenst 7y ago

Maybe, but then you have a different financial model being played out with it being subscritpion based and no small fee either. This changes how it can be marketed and the pyrimid approach would not supprise me in that once the subscriptions level of, they offer them referal links in which they get $1 a month for people subscribing via their link after their extended trial period of say 90 days. At least, that is what I would be looking at doing. Certainly the monthly fee is high, so what level they break even in running costs will be lower and may well be that they already break even in running and depreciation of assets -costs. May even be a small monthly profit already. We just don't know.

incompatible 7y ago
It would be a social network that excludes the poor and the frugal. It reminds me of a network that was created for the extreme rich, a few years ago. On searching for it, I find that there have been several such created: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/09/social-networks-for-millionaires.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/09/social-networks-for-... That was written in 2014, so perhaps there are more since then.

solarhoma 7y ago

Facebooks successor is Instagram. Unfortunately for us Zuckerberg bought Instagram.

iamnothere 7y ago

> Mastadon, and any other number of attempts at this have failed (calling Mastadon a failure is unfair, but its not Twitter and won’t ever be), so will this. Who says that success should be measured by Twitter? It may be that no other social network approaches Twitter and Facebook in size given their dominance, but that doesn't mean that there can be no other social networks. In my opinion, one-size-fits-all social was a mistake to begin with. Smaller niche spaces (like HN) are much more interesting. To think of it another way: did your favorite local bistro "fail" as a restaurant because it didn't become as large as McDonald's? Which one would you rather eat at?

Bootwizard 7y ago
Absolutely agree. I hate this trend of measuring success by comparing small products to massive bloated giants of tech. You don't have to get to that level to be a success, and you're honestly probably better off if you don't. Big social media companies are now seen as responsible for the destruction and compromise of democracy and have many more problems which wouldn't exist if they weren't so universally adopted. I hope the future is full of many smaller niche social media sites that cater to a smaller group instead of trying to appeal to everyone.
- ReverseCold 7y ago
  The usefulness of a general "social network" is how many people it has. If I can't find almost everyone I know on it, and they are on a different platform (Facebook) it's easier for me to just use the other platform. People feel like they need it to keep in touch with others they don't see often (or even just others in general). I personally don't have any major social media accounts, just small ones like HN - but I understand why people feel the need to use larger ones.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mehhh 7y ago
    Are general social networks actually useful though? In mature markets, you have a huge chunk of people that have logged off Facebook permanently. What matters is the people I want to interact with, and in Seattle they are on Mastodon. Not everyone needs to be on it, and frankly if close to everyone were on it you'd potentially drive away a good subset of users. That being said, by design I can retain my feed of friends on Mastodon without fear of some corporation or eternal spring of new users wrecking it.

ISL 7y ago

I'm not sure that a large network is essential. A strong niche is. Owning the market in an influential niche can be enough. Facebook's rise came from universities. It seems unlikely that this particular new network will succeed, but if it provides value to a tight-knit set of users, it can plant roots and grow.

mycall 7y ago

> there is still lots of room for innovation in the live video space. I always thought human experiments online would be huge with combining live video space, experiment ideas, text chat and a reward system.

tyingq 7y ago

Isn't he controlling the throttle with limited "free" signups and the pricing to go around it? A assume he must be happy since he's controlling the growth rate. It's not clear how fast it would be growing without a throttle on "free".

_emacsomancer_ 7y ago

> (calling Mastadon a failure is unfair, but its not Twitter and won’t ever be), Likewise Facebook isn't Myspace and never will be. Does this mean Facebook is a failure?

tekknik 7y ago

it’s 160,000 in two days. that’s insane growth.