8 ms·

Social networks cannot exist and not devolve on today’s internet. Here is why: 1. They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. Sure a few people will pay for

Social networks cannot exist and not devolve on today’s internet. Here is why: 1. They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. Sure a few people will pay for access to a social network. But the majority will not pay $0.01 because the friction of the transaction will prevent them. Moreover, an SN operator can make a lot more money from ads than from subscriptions, at least until proven otherwise. As a result any useful value that an SN provides will quickly be overtaken by more and more intrusive ads. 2. General purpose social networks are relatively boring. I mean how often do you actually hang out with a proportional representation of the general public? No, we want topic or interest based social networks. We want to form consumer tribes, political tribes, sports tribes, etc. We want to talk to people from our school, work, neighborhood, yoga practice, etc. 3. All that is overshadowed by the fact that most people straight up don’t have anything interesting to say. Think of the average person. Do you expect them to wow you with what they are working on even once a month? Chances are, most people will post pictures of their lunch or repost a stupid meme that they finally discovered. Twitter sort of solves this by letting you follow leaders in their fields, but still the SNR is so low that it’s really difficult to find meaningful interactions and unless you are one of those leaders nobody gives a crap about what you shout into the void. The only thing I can see being a path forward is small communities forming their own very limited in size networks with some common authentication platform to help people jump between them. Discord is sort of that, but far cry from a sustainable model.

snarf21 6y ago
I agree with you but you have given the solution as well. Add VAT on all digital advertising and keep raising it until ads aren't the least friction way for people. As long as the social media is encouraged to leverage for profit, they will. We have to force them into a model that has different incentives.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  You don’t think that would just lead to even more intrusive ads in an attempt to make them more effective to offset the cost?
  - snarf21 6y ago
    It is a fair question and to be honest we'll never know. I think we have to try something and this is the best idea I have. The erosion of privacy and the amplification of hate are being driven by this ad funded leverage.
UncleOxidant 6y ago
> Social networks cannot exist and not devolve on today’s internet... They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. I tend to think of IRC as sort of a proto-social network (channels are kind of like tribes - there's usually a topic that is of common interest for those participating). It has existed for a long time without ads or even monetization.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  IRC isn’t accessible by most people. It discriminates based on technical knowledge, which isn’t necessarily bad because it leads to mostly people with some level of education or intelligence (on average) finding it.
  - UncleOxidant 6y ago
    I don't think it's that hard to use IRC. I've certainly run into some non-tech folks on IRC. But yes, I guess it does tend to be more exclusive and maybe that's not a bad thing.
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      It’s not hard to use. But it’s not a one click signup that everyone knows how to use. It’s sort of how “the dark web” isn’t hard to use but your grandma isn’t on there and wouldn’t know where to start, let alone why she’d want to be on there.
  - amelius 6y ago
    Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
- crowbahr 6y ago
  That would be more applicable if IRC had the broad appeal or ease of use of major social networks, however despite being around longer it has been repeatedly eclipsed in user count by every contending service. IRC has no power to shape national discourse, international politics or even quotidian humdrum discussion topics because it has a high barrier to entry, low user friendliness and no additional features. Personally I wouldn't have it any other way: IRC is perfect as is, but it is not a social network that has ever gained enough steam to devolve. It's like saying your family blog has a great comment section, therefore all comments sections can be great without devolving: that's not even universally true for family blog comment sections.
amelius 6y ago
> They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. What if ads were banned?
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Then VCs wouldn’t invest as much into social networks.
  - amelius 6y ago
    Would that be a good or a bad thing?
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      Depends on what you want. If you want to whip out your phone and be able to look up and message your uncle’s ex-wife’s second cousin and message them, even without speaking the same language, you probably won’t get that without large networks. Same with if you want to gather an audience of 5m followers for your brand. If you just want to talk to your buddies or your church group, yeah you don’t need an ad supported network for that.
newman8r 6y ago
I've been working on a network of small communities and I'd tend to agree that these are the path forward. Even so, all 3 points you make are valid. I have no idea how I'd ever monetize the thing, and the only way I've been able to find interesting people is via direct recruiting (on average, the organic users have less to say). I've been trying to open the network up to the public more, but I'm starting to realize that making the communities more insular and invite-only had been more successful - but that's very hard to scale. The site is https://podaero.com https://podaero.com - always appreciate new users.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I run a community Discord of about 80 people currently. I personally would pay something like $100-200/year for a nice network for these people as the administrator. If the network grew more, I might be willing to pay more. Discoverability is a thing though. This community is deliberately private but is discoverable from two other social networks, and centered around a business which ultimately makes money from the community. In other words, the meetup model might work for these kinds of communities.
  - benhurmarcel 6y ago
    Why is a modern forum (like Discourse on your own domain) not an option?
- halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
  I've been doing the same thing but around live TV. The goal is each show is its own community that essentially forms and disperses as the shows are live and then end. https://couchmate.com https://couchmate.com
  - newman8r 6y ago
    that's a pretty cool idea. I've been looking for something like that with a crowdsourced playlist with live chat, and just to watch youtube videos. I think there used to be something like that but I can't remember it. What are you doing to market your project, and have you had an easy time getting users?
cbozeman 6y ago
Your third point is the second most important, but the most important is number one by far. People are willing to let social media turn into a shitshow because they're not invested. It didn't cost them anything and it doesn't continue to cost them anything, so it has no value. Starship Troopers (both the book and the movie) hit the nail on the head... "Something given has no value."
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  TANSTAAFL :) The thing is that if your social network gave you more value than $10/month, you’d sign up for it, no? Remember when texting on your mobile phone was a separate plan that cost about $10-20/month? People fell over themselves to sign up for that because it gave them access to a large social network, one that consisted of people you actually meet in real life and that are presumably worth keeping up with. I don’t use Facebook because nobody on there really is worth my time to keep up with, and I can’t bring myself to try to curate my feed/friends list because that’s just work, all the while FB will keep polluting it with ads anyways. Instagram is mildly more worth it to me because you can actually find some meaningful connections on there as a photographer, but I suspect that’s 100% temporary.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  But the book (as I understand) is straight faced, while the movie is biting satire. Aren't the two saying opposite things with that line?
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    I saw the movie more as a campy adaptation than satire. In either case, while most people are familiar with the movie, the book is much more significant. I believe it’s still required reading in the Marine Corp for example. TANSTAAFL is from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, basically a libertarian manifesto. Heinlein had range. Add Stranger in a Strange Land, the hippie manifesto, and you have the trifecta.
- mro_name 6y ago
  indeed. Like online snipers. Shooting from cover. They don't expose themselves while insulting. That asymmetry enables toxicity. And volume will make it a matter of time until arbitrary toxic things eventually show up. Participation must require more committment than opening a free account. I wonder how those free accounts without any accountability get any credibility.
u801e 6y ago
> They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. Sure a few people will pay for access to a social network. But the majority will not pay $0.01 because the friction of the transaction will prevent them. This could be done by the ISP hosting an instance of the service that can inter-operate with other hosted instances on other ISPs. They already do this with email and many of them did with usenet.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  So you want your ISP to offer the Facebook Package, the Twitter Package, the Slack Package, the Discord Package, the Instagram Package, the Tik Tok package, and with any of them you can get the AOL package? Sort of like the opposite of net neutrality? Plus do you really want Comcast to have control over what most people see as news via social media? The same Comcast that is very politically connected and regularly lobbies state and federal legislatures to blatantly advance their own interests.
  - u801e 6y ago
    The idea doesn't work with closed source protocols like what you listed. It would work with open source protocols that can interface with other instances on other ISPs.
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      Unless your ISP blocks that traffic or makes you pay extra for access to that system you want them to host or has their own curation team curating the news to suit their needs.
      - u801e 6y ago
        You're only able to access the service using the credentials you use for your internet connection. What other people post is not under the ISPs control, nor is what you post. Back when ISPs provided access to usenet, they never filtered what was posted and what you saw was under your control.
creddit 6y ago
> All that is overshadowed by the fact that most people straight up don’t have anything interesting to say. Think of the average person. Do you expect them to wow you with what they are working on even once a month? Chances are, most people will post pictures of their lunch or repost a stupid meme that they finally discovered. Twitter sort of solves this by letting you follow leaders in their fields, but still the SNR is so low that it’s really difficult to find meaningful interactions and unless you are one of those leaders nobody gives a crap about what you shout into the void. Imagine the implications of actually believing this, because if you thought hard enough about it, you probably don't believe it. For example, if you truly believed this, you must think most people straight up don't have any friends. I mean, why would anyone want to be friends with someone who straight up doesn't have anything interesting to say? Like, do you think the average person, hanging out with their average friends on a regular basis is just mind-numbingly, dumbfoundedly bored? Why do you think they keep hanging out with all those average people? You think they derive zero meaning from their interactions with anyone who isn't a "leader in their field". The dim view you have on humanity blows my mind. There's meaning to be had all around for these average people. This is exactly why average people hate the proverbial elites. You (ostensibly elite) view them as worthless plebs whose social interactions with their friends are so worthless, they don't even deserve the chance to share them online. Only so-called leaders in their field should be allowed to interact publicly online. Their interactions are the only ones with meaning in your view. When I'm on FB or Instagram or Snapchat, and I see the plenty of average people I know interacting, I see all sorts of wonderful, meaningful human interactions. Today, my old high school math teacher posted a joke image of the side effects of the COVID vaccine which included hugs from his grandchildren. His son replied about how he can't wait for him and his grandson to be with him again and many of his friends commented about how touched they were. Who gives a fuck if it's a cringeworthy, stupid meme they discovered? It was a wonderful expression of humanity from completely average, nobodies. There's so much wrong with social networks, but the plebs having no meaning and nothing interesting to say isn't one of them.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I think you are taking what I said a bit out of context. Most people have a half dozen close friends and they find that person interesting or pleasant to be around or whatever it is they see in them. But hand a average person a megaphone in front of a crowd of 10,000 people and they won’t know what to say and will run out of steam quickly. Global social networks are that megaphone. This is why your feed, while having some gems, is also likely full of reposted memes, personality quizzes, and other retweeted/reposted content. If you have no actual special connection to the person who is posting the meme/quiz/repost, it is just noise to you, no? I firmly believe that technology like social networks can bring people closer together and enrich lives of everyone, from luminaries to ordinary folks. And I believe we should build better networks. But if I throw a dart at a completely random Facebook post and read it, there is a very good chance it’ll be a lot less interesting than a random post from e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson or Neil Patrick Harris or Obama. My point is that having these huge global networks doesn’t actually achieve the goal of furthering friendships or increasing the quality of content the participants read.
cageface 6y ago
This is an excellent summary of the problems with social networks as currently implemented. All the incentives are pre-wired to make them horrible places.
GekkePrutser 6y ago
I would beg to differ about the monetisation. See how many people pay crazy money for Bloomberg terminal just to be part of the in crowd. A social network could work for a few bucks a month I think.
naravara 6y ago
> 1. They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. Sure a few people will pay for access to a social network. But the majority will not pay $0.01 because the friction of the transaction will prevent them. Moreover, an SN operator can make a lot more money from ads than from subscriptions, at least until proven otherwise. As a result any useful value that an SN provides will quickly be overtaken by more and more intrusive ads. I don't know about this. It may well be that only being ad driven can monetize them to $billion+ valuations. But I don't know if it is for sure that you can't have a more modest, but still very respectable business worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars by monetizing in other ways. It should also be clear that social media's monetization strategy isn't just about ads, it's about data farming to serve highly targeted ads. They're not just selling out full page ad spreads and selling classifieds like in a newspaper. Those would be perfectly fine monetization plans that just focus on self-reported areas of interest and some very basic geolocation. There is some incentive to drive engagement to get eyeballs but it's not nearly as strong because they just need you to log in and hang out. They don't need you to interact constantly to collect data on your emotional state and receptivity.

snarf21 6y ago

I agree with you but you have given the solution as well. Add VAT on all digital advertising and keep raising it until ads aren't the least friction way for people. As long as the social media is encouraged to leverage for profit, they will. We have to force them into a model that has different incentives.

IgorPartola 6y ago
You don’t think that would just lead to even more intrusive ads in an attempt to make them more effective to offset the cost?
- snarf21 6y ago
  It is a fair question and to be honest we'll never know. I think we have to try something and this is the best idea I have. The erosion of privacy and the amplification of hate are being driven by this ad funded leverage.

UncleOxidant 6y ago

> Social networks cannot exist and not devolve on today’s internet... They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. I tend to think of IRC as sort of a proto-social network (channels are kind of like tribes - there's usually a topic that is of common interest for those participating). It has existed for a long time without ads or even monetization.

IgorPartola 6y ago
IRC isn’t accessible by most people. It discriminates based on technical knowledge, which isn’t necessarily bad because it leads to mostly people with some level of education or intelligence (on average) finding it.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  I don't think it's that hard to use IRC. I've certainly run into some non-tech folks on IRC. But yes, I guess it does tend to be more exclusive and maybe that's not a bad thing.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    It’s not hard to use. But it’s not a one click signup that everyone knows how to use. It’s sort of how “the dark web” isn’t hard to use but your grandma isn’t on there and wouldn’t know where to start, let alone why she’d want to be on there.
- amelius 6y ago
  Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
crowbahr 6y ago
That would be more applicable if IRC had the broad appeal or ease of use of major social networks, however despite being around longer it has been repeatedly eclipsed in user count by every contending service. IRC has no power to shape national discourse, international politics or even quotidian humdrum discussion topics because it has a high barrier to entry, low user friendliness and no additional features. Personally I wouldn't have it any other way: IRC is perfect as is, but it is not a social network that has ever gained enough steam to devolve. It's like saying your family blog has a great comment section, therefore all comments sections can be great without devolving: that's not even universally true for family blog comment sections.

amelius 6y ago

> They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. What if ads were banned?

IgorPartola 6y ago
Then VCs wouldn’t invest as much into social networks.
- amelius 6y ago
  Would that be a good or a bad thing?
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Depends on what you want. If you want to whip out your phone and be able to look up and message your uncle’s ex-wife’s second cousin and message them, even without speaking the same language, you probably won’t get that without large networks. Same with if you want to gather an audience of 5m followers for your brand. If you just want to talk to your buddies or your church group, yeah you don’t need an ad supported network for that.

newman8r 6y ago

I've been working on a network of small communities and I'd tend to agree that these are the path forward. Even so, all 3 points you make are valid. I have no idea how I'd ever monetize the thing, and the only way I've been able to find interesting people is via direct recruiting (on average, the organic users have less to say). I've been trying to open the network up to the public more, but I'm starting to realize that making the communities more insular and invite-only had been more successful - but that's very hard to scale. The site is https://podaero.com https://podaero.com - always appreciate new users.

IgorPartola 6y ago
I run a community Discord of about 80 people currently. I personally would pay something like $100-200/year for a nice network for these people as the administrator. If the network grew more, I might be willing to pay more. Discoverability is a thing though. This community is deliberately private but is discoverable from two other social networks, and centered around a business which ultimately makes money from the community. In other words, the meetup model might work for these kinds of communities.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  Why is a modern forum (like Discourse on your own domain) not an option?
halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
I've been doing the same thing but around live TV. The goal is each show is its own community that essentially forms and disperses as the shows are live and then end. https://couchmate.com https://couchmate.com
- newman8r 6y ago
  that's a pretty cool idea. I've been looking for something like that with a crowdsourced playlist with live chat, and just to watch youtube videos. I think there used to be something like that but I can't remember it. What are you doing to market your project, and have you had an easy time getting users?

cbozeman 6y ago

Your third point is the second most important, but the most important is number one by far. People are willing to let social media turn into a shitshow because they're not invested. It didn't cost them anything and it doesn't continue to cost them anything, so it has no value. Starship Troopers (both the book and the movie) hit the nail on the head... "Something given has no value."

IgorPartola 6y ago
TANSTAAFL :) The thing is that if your social network gave you more value than $10/month, you’d sign up for it, no? Remember when texting on your mobile phone was a separate plan that cost about $10-20/month? People fell over themselves to sign up for that because it gave them access to a large social network, one that consisted of people you actually meet in real life and that are presumably worth keeping up with. I don’t use Facebook because nobody on there really is worth my time to keep up with, and I can’t bring myself to try to curate my feed/friends list because that’s just work, all the while FB will keep polluting it with ads anyways. Instagram is mildly more worth it to me because you can actually find some meaningful connections on there as a photographer, but I suspect that’s 100% temporary.
AlexandrB 6y ago
But the book (as I understand) is straight faced, while the movie is biting satire. Aren't the two saying opposite things with that line?
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I saw the movie more as a campy adaptation than satire. In either case, while most people are familiar with the movie, the book is much more significant. I believe it’s still required reading in the Marine Corp for example. TANSTAAFL is from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, basically a libertarian manifesto. Heinlein had range. Add Stranger in a Strange Land, the hippie manifesto, and you have the trifecta.
mro_name 6y ago
indeed. Like online snipers. Shooting from cover. They don't expose themselves while insulting. That asymmetry enables toxicity. And volume will make it a matter of time until arbitrary toxic things eventually show up. Participation must require more committment than opening a free account. I wonder how those free accounts without any accountability get any credibility.

u801e 6y ago

> They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. Sure a few people will pay for access to a social network. But the majority will not pay $0.01 because the friction of the transaction will prevent them. This could be done by the ISP hosting an instance of the service that can inter-operate with other hosted instances on other ISPs. They already do this with email and many of them did with usenet.

IgorPartola 6y ago
So you want your ISP to offer the Facebook Package, the Twitter Package, the Slack Package, the Discord Package, the Instagram Package, the Tik Tok package, and with any of them you can get the AOL package? Sort of like the opposite of net neutrality? Plus do you really want Comcast to have control over what most people see as news via social media? The same Comcast that is very politically connected and regularly lobbies state and federal legislatures to blatantly advance their own interests.
- u801e 6y ago
  The idea doesn't work with closed source protocols like what you listed. It would work with open source protocols that can interface with other instances on other ISPs.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Unless your ISP blocks that traffic or makes you pay extra for access to that system you want them to host or has their own curation team curating the news to suit their needs.
    - u801e 6y ago
      You're only able to access the service using the credentials you use for your internet connection. What other people post is not under the ISPs control, nor is what you post. Back when ISPs provided access to usenet, they never filtered what was posted and what you saw was under your control.

creddit 6y ago

> All that is overshadowed by the fact that most people straight up don’t have anything interesting to say. Think of the average person. Do you expect them to wow you with what they are working on even once a month? Chances are, most people will post pictures of their lunch or repost a stupid meme that they finally discovered. Twitter sort of solves this by letting you follow leaders in their fields, but still the SNR is so low that it’s really difficult to find meaningful interactions and unless you are one of those leaders nobody gives a crap about what you shout into the void. Imagine the implications of actually believing this, because if you thought hard enough about it, you probably don't believe it. For example, if you truly believed this, you must think most people straight up don't have any friends. I mean, why would anyone want to be friends with someone who straight up doesn't have anything interesting to say? Like, do you think the average person, hanging out with their average friends on a regular basis is just mind-numbingly, dumbfoundedly bored? Why do you think they keep hanging out with all those average people? You think they derive zero meaning from their interactions with anyone who isn't a "leader in their field". The dim view you have on humanity blows my mind. There's meaning to be had all around for these average people. This is exactly why average people hate the proverbial elites. You (ostensibly elite) view them as worthless plebs whose social interactions with their friends are so worthless, they don't even deserve the chance to share them online. Only so-called leaders in their field should be allowed to interact publicly online. Their interactions are the only ones with meaning in your view. When I'm on FB or Instagram or Snapchat, and I see the plenty of average people I know interacting, I see all sorts of wonderful, meaningful human interactions. Today, my old high school math teacher posted a joke image of the side effects of the COVID vaccine which included hugs from his grandchildren. His son replied about how he can't wait for him and his grandson to be with him again and many of his friends commented about how touched they were. Who gives a fuck if it's a cringeworthy, stupid meme they discovered? It was a wonderful expression of humanity from completely average, nobodies. There's so much wrong with social networks, but the plebs having no meaning and nothing interesting to say isn't one of them.

IgorPartola 6y ago
I think you are taking what I said a bit out of context. Most people have a half dozen close friends and they find that person interesting or pleasant to be around or whatever it is they see in them. But hand a average person a megaphone in front of a crowd of 10,000 people and they won’t know what to say and will run out of steam quickly. Global social networks are that megaphone. This is why your feed, while having some gems, is also likely full of reposted memes, personality quizzes, and other retweeted/reposted content. If you have no actual special connection to the person who is posting the meme/quiz/repost, it is just noise to you, no? I firmly believe that technology like social networks can bring people closer together and enrich lives of everyone, from luminaries to ordinary folks. And I believe we should build better networks. But if I throw a dart at a completely random Facebook post and read it, there is a very good chance it’ll be a lot less interesting than a random post from e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson or Neil Patrick Harris or Obama. My point is that having these huge global networks doesn’t actually achieve the goal of furthering friendships or increasing the quality of content the participants read.

cageface 6y ago

This is an excellent summary of the problems with social networks as currently implemented. All the incentives are pre-wired to make them horrible places.

GekkePrutser 6y ago

I would beg to differ about the monetisation. See how many people pay crazy money for Bloomberg terminal just to be part of the in crowd. A social network could work for a few bucks a month I think.

naravara 6y ago

> 1. They cannot be monetized via anything but ads. Sure a few people will pay for access to a social network. But the majority will not pay $0.01 because the friction of the transaction will prevent them. Moreover, an SN operator can make a lot more money from ads than from subscriptions, at least until proven otherwise. As a result any useful value that an SN provides will quickly be overtaken by more and more intrusive ads. I don't know about this. It may well be that only being ad driven can monetize them to $billion+ valuations. But I don't know if it is for sure that you can't have a more modest, but still very respectable business worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars by monetizing in other ways. It should also be clear that social media's monetization strategy isn't just about ads, it's about data farming to serve highly targeted ads. They're not just selling out full page ad spreads and selling classifieds like in a newspaper. Those would be perfectly fine monetization plans that just focus on self-reported areas of interest and some very basic geolocation. There is some incentive to drive engagement to get eyeballs but it's not nearly as strong because they just need you to log in and hang out. They don't need you to interact constantly to collect data on your emotional state and receptivity.