4 ms·

Essentially people want a free social network that doesn't use its users data for mining and advertising, doesn't track user data, doesn't archive their message

Essentially people want a free social network that doesn't use its users data for mining and advertising, doesn't track user data, doesn't archive their messages if they delete them/their account/they die, and free from moderation. Is that really too much to ask for? The answer is yes - yes it is too much to ask for - you don't get a free service without paying for it in some other way - mostly these days through the data mining/advertising side of things. If there's no way to turn a profit then why would someone pay for it to be setup?

pydry 6y ago
I'd rather host this and most other internet services on a box in my house, next to my router. Or, it could be my router. Either way. It's just really annoying to do that right now and the solutions that attempt to make it easy and slick aren't quite there. This type of thing could be made more popular with normal people if it's easy enough since popular features which "break" the business models of companies like Facebook become popular (e.g. filtering of news feed that under the users direct control or lossless storage of photos). I think most people would be happier owning the hardware than renting an online service.
- adrianpike 6y ago
  Is that not just a blog?
  - cyberdelica 6y ago
    Before people abused the term "social network" to include all manner of things, including forums such as Reddit and Hacker News, using Twitter was referred to as "micro blogging".
- shipstain 6y ago
  Opera browser had a feature at one point where you could basically have it as a server and browser. And if we all had transparent addressing on the network you could do that. I have the ability to host at home, but I'm not too keen about having my personal address on the Internet. I know that's an oxymoron, but I'd rather have someone attacking a cloud node than my personal network. And I still value my anonymity in places.
musingsole 6y ago
> If there's no way to turn a profit then why would someone pay for it to be setup? I hear your argument. No VC-funded start-up is likely to make moves in this space. But your question ignores a whole sector of the economy: non-profits. I believe there even have been some non-profit social network attempts (perhaps even still active), though I can't recall their names.
- iib 6y ago
  I think this attempt by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales (but unrelated to Wikipedia itself) comes close [1]. Honestly, if it manages to approximately implement the community approach that works under Wikimedia itself, it may well become the most non-toxic social network, as they self-advertise it. https://wt.social/ https://wt.social/ [1]
wayoutthere 6y ago
> If there's no way to turn a profit then why would someone pay for it to be setup? If it is generally useful to society but unprofitable to provide, isn’t that the category of things that the government should fund and operate like a utility? That said, I don’t think the government should be in the business of running social networks. But at the same time I didn’t think China would get so much more right about the Internet than we have.
Naac 6y ago
>> The answer is yes - yes it is too much to ask for How can that be so when we have websites like Wikipedia, or Openstreemap?
- andrewprock 6y ago
  I'm not sure about Openstreetmap, but Wikipedia has a huge budget. It does get paid for, and the people paying for it definitely consider what it is they are supporting.
- laumars 6y ago
  Quite a lot of people (myself included) do actually pay for Wikipedia.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chipsa 6y ago
Ask Signal.
- lvspiff 6y ago
  Signal is a messaging service not a social network
  - chipsa 6y ago
    It is a messaging service, but it's also free, with a non-trivial server requirement, and with no monetization available for the service (neither ads nor subscription).
user-the-name 6y ago
> The answer is yes - yes it is too much to ask for Mastodon exists. It is what you described. It is paid for either by generous individuals or by donations.
paul_f 6y ago
"Free from moderation" Isn't that what got Parler in trouble? Is it possible to have an unmoderated social network anymore?
konjin 6y ago
I can pay for it by running a local node. Aether works that way. It is missing the anonymity OP wants but everything else is there.

pydry 6y ago

I'd rather host this and most other internet services on a box in my house, next to my router. Or, it could be my router. Either way. It's just really annoying to do that right now and the solutions that attempt to make it easy and slick aren't quite there. This type of thing could be made more popular with normal people if it's easy enough since popular features which "break" the business models of companies like Facebook become popular (e.g. filtering of news feed that under the users direct control or lossless storage of photos). I think most people would be happier owning the hardware than renting an online service.

adrianpike 6y ago
Is that not just a blog?
- cyberdelica 6y ago
  Before people abused the term "social network" to include all manner of things, including forums such as Reddit and Hacker News, using Twitter was referred to as "micro blogging".
shipstain 6y ago
Opera browser had a feature at one point where you could basically have it as a server and browser. And if we all had transparent addressing on the network you could do that. I have the ability to host at home, but I'm not too keen about having my personal address on the Internet. I know that's an oxymoron, but I'd rather have someone attacking a cloud node than my personal network. And I still value my anonymity in places.

musingsole 6y ago

> If there's no way to turn a profit then why would someone pay for it to be setup? I hear your argument. No VC-funded start-up is likely to make moves in this space. But your question ignores a whole sector of the economy: non-profits. I believe there even have been some non-profit social network attempts (perhaps even still active), though I can't recall their names.

iib 6y ago
I think this attempt by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales (but unrelated to Wikipedia itself) comes close [1]. Honestly, if it manages to approximately implement the community approach that works under Wikimedia itself, it may well become the most non-toxic social network, as they self-advertise it. https://wt.social/ https://wt.social/ [1]

wayoutthere 6y ago

> If there's no way to turn a profit then why would someone pay for it to be setup? If it is generally useful to society but unprofitable to provide, isn’t that the category of things that the government should fund and operate like a utility? That said, I don’t think the government should be in the business of running social networks. But at the same time I didn’t think China would get so much more right about the Internet than we have.

Naac 6y ago

>> The answer is yes - yes it is too much to ask for How can that be so when we have websites like Wikipedia, or Openstreemap?

andrewprock 6y ago
I'm not sure about Openstreetmap, but Wikipedia has a huge budget. It does get paid for, and the people paying for it definitely consider what it is they are supporting.
laumars 6y ago
Quite a lot of people (myself included) do actually pay for Wikipedia.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chipsa 6y ago

Ask Signal.

lvspiff 6y ago
Signal is a messaging service not a social network
- chipsa 6y ago
  It is a messaging service, but it's also free, with a non-trivial server requirement, and with no monetization available for the service (neither ads nor subscription).

user-the-name 6y ago

> The answer is yes - yes it is too much to ask for Mastodon exists. It is what you described. It is paid for either by generous individuals or by donations.

paul_f 6y ago

"Free from moderation" Isn't that what got Parler in trouble? Is it possible to have an unmoderated social network anymore?

konjin 6y ago

I can pay for it by running a local node. Aether works that way. It is missing the anonymity OP wants but everything else is there.