13 ms·

My suggestion: add a "circles of trust" feature, where you categorize your users into different levels like: acquaintance, co-worker, friend, family, special fr

My suggestion: add a "circles of trust" feature, where you categorize your users into different levels like: acquaintance, co-worker, friend, family, special friends. Each post would have a simple bullseye icon to select how far in to the circle of trust you must be to see the post.

doggosphere 6y ago
Google Plus circles
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  That was the feature I loved about Google Plus, I used it extensively when the service was growing. But no one else went to it regularly enough. CS Friends, Video Game Friends, RPG Friends, Soccer Buddies, Family, Immediate Family, Colleagues (several for several different jobs). I could easily post things across circles that would appeal to that circle. Vacation photos go to family and some friends, most don't care (or need to see it). My nerdy tabletop RPG posts went to those friends who cared about it. CS/programming topics went to those friends who cared about it.
  - SCNP 6y ago
    You just made me realize that this is implemented in Discord but very poorly. I have difficulty deciding where I should post a meme to get it to the people that will like it. Maybe I'm just on too many Discord servers...
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      Well, the other problem with Discord is that people have to opt-in to the groupings. Circles were publisher driven. If you were in my CS Friends circle, that was just where I categorized you. It was not akin to a FB group or a Discord server. In those, you have to accept some kind of invitation into the grouping, and you're made to communicate with everyone in the group/server. Circles were one way, from me to the circle. For a circle member to publish to all the same people they'd need to be connected to all of them directly in G+ and create an identical circle. This is the same issue as group messaging in most instant message type systems (including SMS/MMS). It's forcing a full connection between all participants, when really we may only want a fan-out structure. I haven't used it much (not as many people on it in my social circles) but WhatsApp's broadcast lists are like G+ circles in this regard.
- eitland 6y ago
  Well, the circles feature as implemented and documented by Google managed to confuse even me and I thought I understood it early on.
- rakoo 6y ago
  XMPP roster groups
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    xmpp lol. Great protocol, terrible clients.
tyingq 6y ago
I like the bullseye idea, but aren't circles often venn diagrams? That is, you might not want work posts to go to family, and vice-versa as well. Doesn't fit the bullseye idea naturally.
- wintermutestwin 6y ago
  Yeah - maybe there needs to be a "customize" option for posts that don't fit into the bullseye. I think venn diagrams would be too complex in the interface.
  - SamBam 6y ago
    It seems pretty straight-forward to me: Who can see this: x Family x Friends 0 Co-workers 0 Quiddich team (custom group) Why over-complicate it?
treeman79 6y ago
Google tried this. Google+ You setup your circles for various topics. Neat idea. Complete failure. I’ve set up social interactions for major companies. Basically any restriction on who can see what will kill the feature.
- munificent 6y ago
  > Basically any restriction on who can see what will kill the feature. I think that's likely true for social media apps where the product is "free" in that users are the product and advertisers are the customers that fund it. In that business model, your number one goal is to maximize eyeballs. But Haven doesn't have that business model at all, so it's not clear to me that a way to control who sees what posts would harm success. By analogy, farmers want to grow as many plants per acre as they possibly can to maximize revenue. The idea of potting their plants individually makes no sense. But if I just want a plant on my windowsill and don't want dirt everywhere, a pot is what I want.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    Tangent. Any talk of tech people and farmers seems to always change to pot.
    - frakkingcylons 6y ago
      Uhhh read that sentence again. I think you’re projecting.
      - InitialLastName 6y ago
        They were just being self-fulfilling.
- 1234letshaveatw 6y ago
  It seems to work well enough in nextdoor interestingly- but the circles are location based
teeray 6y ago
I think there’s some unspoken stress about building and maintaining a taxonomy of your relationships. Whether someone is an acquaintance or a friend or a good friend can be fairly dynamic. Being constantly confronted with rearranging people into different “circles” feels a bit like explicitly deciding if people can sit at the cool kids table today or not.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  They can be like tagging. In what context do I know Jack? I met him through church and at work. Maybe we have some other mutual interests. How do I know Joe? Coincidentally also through church and work, but we're both programmers (Jack is an engineer with different technical interests), we play soccer together, we enjoy seeing movies in the theater, and we participate in team trivia at restaurants and bars together. By tagging people (or placing them into circles in the G+ sense), I can select which group to communicate something to based on selecting a tag or set of tags. "Hey soccer peeps, I'm going to take my ball and some cones down to the field at Central Elementary this Saturday if you want to come out and practice with me." directed @soccer_peeps. Maybe throw a few groups together that aren't fully overlapping in general: @soccer_peeps @trivia_teamsters "Party at my place this Saturday, here's a link to RSVP and sign up to bring something." I'm not forced to put everyone into a distinct category or circle, but can use loose taggings effectively.
- divbzero 6y ago
  And having set up circles, there is also some unspoken stress in making sure you don’t inadvertently “overshare” a post to a broader circle than you intended.
  - hunter2_ 6y ago
    > inadvertently Separate icons on ones launcher go a long way toward maintaining intent.
- hunter2_ 6y ago
  I think many people creating social content mainly just want to choose between two classifications: Option 1 is for content that won't offend anyone or tarnish the author's reputation. The audience can include all contacts including coworkers, family, etc. and the author will often use their real name. Example: Facebook. Option 2 is for risqué content. It could cause issues with employment and other real-life relations. The audience must be carefully controlled, or if not, a pseudonym (that only a carefully controlled audience, if anyone at all, can map to a real name) must be used. Example: Reddit; private group chats. This seems to cover most scenarios without the overhead/stress of trying to shoehorn all of these boundaries in a single platform/app.
mvexel 6y ago
Flickr has had this from the beginning. I always appreciated their simple approach to it, similar to what you are suggesting: Private, Family, Friends, Family & Friends, Everyone. There's no guesswork, no 'Friends of Friends' where it becomes opaque who you are sharing with. Your idea having a Venn representation of it makes complete sense.
spullara 6y ago
Facebook Lists and Google+ Circles. Failed models.
ihunter2839 6y ago
An alternative (or additional) solution that I have considered is making it easy for a user to provide keys to others to allow access to content. You could use some combination of the two sets of controls to provide pretty granular privacy control over all sorts of things.
dismalpedigree 6y ago
Google+ ?
garfieldnate 6y ago
I don't think it's necessary to require a formal hierarchy. I loved google+ with it's "circles", which were just tags. Whenever you posted, you could choose who to share with. I much preferred that to Facebook.

doggosphere 6y ago

Google Plus circles

Jtsummers 6y ago
That was the feature I loved about Google Plus, I used it extensively when the service was growing. But no one else went to it regularly enough. CS Friends, Video Game Friends, RPG Friends, Soccer Buddies, Family, Immediate Family, Colleagues (several for several different jobs). I could easily post things across circles that would appeal to that circle. Vacation photos go to family and some friends, most don't care (or need to see it). My nerdy tabletop RPG posts went to those friends who cared about it. CS/programming topics went to those friends who cared about it.
- SCNP 6y ago
  You just made me realize that this is implemented in Discord but very poorly. I have difficulty deciding where I should post a meme to get it to the people that will like it. Maybe I'm just on too many Discord servers...
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    Well, the other problem with Discord is that people have to opt-in to the groupings. Circles were publisher driven. If you were in my CS Friends circle, that was just where I categorized you. It was not akin to a FB group or a Discord server. In those, you have to accept some kind of invitation into the grouping, and you're made to communicate with everyone in the group/server. Circles were one way, from me to the circle. For a circle member to publish to all the same people they'd need to be connected to all of them directly in G+ and create an identical circle. This is the same issue as group messaging in most instant message type systems (including SMS/MMS). It's forcing a full connection between all participants, when really we may only want a fan-out structure. I haven't used it much (not as many people on it in my social circles) but WhatsApp's broadcast lists are like G+ circles in this regard.
eitland 6y ago
Well, the circles feature as implemented and documented by Google managed to confuse even me and I thought I understood it early on.
rakoo 6y ago
XMPP roster groups
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  xmpp lol. Great protocol, terrible clients.

tyingq 6y ago

I like the bullseye idea, but aren't circles often venn diagrams? That is, you might not want work posts to go to family, and vice-versa as well. Doesn't fit the bullseye idea naturally.

wintermutestwin 6y ago
Yeah - maybe there needs to be a "customize" option for posts that don't fit into the bullseye. I think venn diagrams would be too complex in the interface.
- SamBam 6y ago
  It seems pretty straight-forward to me: Who can see this: x Family x Friends 0 Co-workers 0 Quiddich team (custom group) Why over-complicate it?

treeman79 6y ago

Google tried this. Google+ You setup your circles for various topics. Neat idea. Complete failure. I’ve set up social interactions for major companies. Basically any restriction on who can see what will kill the feature.

munificent 6y ago
> Basically any restriction on who can see what will kill the feature. I think that's likely true for social media apps where the product is "free" in that users are the product and advertisers are the customers that fund it. In that business model, your number one goal is to maximize eyeballs. But Haven doesn't have that business model at all, so it's not clear to me that a way to control who sees what posts would harm success. By analogy, farmers want to grow as many plants per acre as they possibly can to maximize revenue. The idea of potting their plants individually makes no sense. But if I just want a plant on my windowsill and don't want dirt everywhere, a pot is what I want.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Tangent. Any talk of tech people and farmers seems to always change to pot.
  - frakkingcylons 6y ago
    Uhhh read that sentence again. I think you’re projecting.
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      They were just being self-fulfilling.
1234letshaveatw 6y ago
It seems to work well enough in nextdoor interestingly- but the circles are location based

teeray 6y ago

I think there’s some unspoken stress about building and maintaining a taxonomy of your relationships. Whether someone is an acquaintance or a friend or a good friend can be fairly dynamic. Being constantly confronted with rearranging people into different “circles” feels a bit like explicitly deciding if people can sit at the cool kids table today or not.

Jtsummers 6y ago
They can be like tagging. In what context do I know Jack? I met him through church and at work. Maybe we have some other mutual interests. How do I know Joe? Coincidentally also through church and work, but we're both programmers (Jack is an engineer with different technical interests), we play soccer together, we enjoy seeing movies in the theater, and we participate in team trivia at restaurants and bars together. By tagging people (or placing them into circles in the G+ sense), I can select which group to communicate something to based on selecting a tag or set of tags. "Hey soccer peeps, I'm going to take my ball and some cones down to the field at Central Elementary this Saturday if you want to come out and practice with me." directed @soccer_peeps. Maybe throw a few groups together that aren't fully overlapping in general: @soccer_peeps @trivia_teamsters "Party at my place this Saturday, here's a link to RSVP and sign up to bring something." I'm not forced to put everyone into a distinct category or circle, but can use loose taggings effectively.
divbzero 6y ago
And having set up circles, there is also some unspoken stress in making sure you don’t inadvertently “overshare” a post to a broader circle than you intended.
- hunter2_ 6y ago
  > inadvertently Separate icons on ones launcher go a long way toward maintaining intent.
hunter2_ 6y ago
I think many people creating social content mainly just want to choose between two classifications: Option 1 is for content that won't offend anyone or tarnish the author's reputation. The audience can include all contacts including coworkers, family, etc. and the author will often use their real name. Example: Facebook. Option 2 is for risqué content. It could cause issues with employment and other real-life relations. The audience must be carefully controlled, or if not, a pseudonym (that only a carefully controlled audience, if anyone at all, can map to a real name) must be used. Example: Reddit; private group chats. This seems to cover most scenarios without the overhead/stress of trying to shoehorn all of these boundaries in a single platform/app.

mvexel 6y ago

Flickr has had this from the beginning. I always appreciated their simple approach to it, similar to what you are suggesting: Private, Family, Friends, Family & Friends, Everyone. There's no guesswork, no 'Friends of Friends' where it becomes opaque who you are sharing with. Your idea having a Venn representation of it makes complete sense.

spullara 6y ago

Facebook Lists and Google+ Circles. Failed models.

ihunter2839 6y ago

An alternative (or additional) solution that I have considered is making it easy for a user to provide keys to others to allow access to content. You could use some combination of the two sets of controls to provide pretty granular privacy control over all sorts of things.

dismalpedigree 6y ago

Google+ ?

garfieldnate 6y ago

I don't think it's necessary to require a formal hierarchy. I loved google+ with it's "circles", which were just tags. Whenever you posted, you could choose who to share with. I much preferred that to Facebook.