3 ms·

> 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 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.
- yiyus 6y ago
  I do not think the barrier to entry was so high. Some years ago (before facebook or even earlier), it was common to see all kind of people chatting in cybercafes, and also not so long ago in countries or places with poor connections. They either used some installed client or, most often, a web interface. And people could manage quite well, even non tech savvy people. But, except for that, I totally agree with your comment. It did never have the power that social networks have today, and as soon as more interesting tools were available, most people moved on.
Jiocus 6y ago
Being text-based, and chat, I'd guess IRC is many times lighter to (financially) sustain for a set amount of users, compared to many web based social network today. Page loads, reloads, dynamic content, rich media and more does add up to amazing amounts of data. As the user base grows, monetization or financial donations becomes a requirement if such a platform will be sustainable. A lot of processing and data transfers "need" to happen to simply read a short text message from a friend. How could we design social platforms as streamlined as IRC? What technologies do we have? HTML works. How do we keep the online experience and rich media we are accustomed to today while going for an affordable architecture. Solving the ads and monetization issue should be tackled from multiple angles. Not just asking where the money will come from. I believe more could be discussed about creating sustainable, lightweight solutions as well.

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.

yiyus 6y ago
I do not think the barrier to entry was so high. Some years ago (before facebook or even earlier), it was common to see all kind of people chatting in cybercafes, and also not so long ago in countries or places with poor connections. They either used some installed client or, most often, a web interface. And people could manage quite well, even non tech savvy people. But, except for that, I totally agree with your comment. It did never have the power that social networks have today, and as soon as more interesting tools were available, most people moved on.

Jiocus 6y ago

Being text-based, and chat, I'd guess IRC is many times lighter to (financially) sustain for a set amount of users, compared to many web based social network today. Page loads, reloads, dynamic content, rich media and more does add up to amazing amounts of data. As the user base grows, monetization or financial donations becomes a requirement if such a platform will be sustainable. A lot of processing and data transfers "need" to happen to simply read a short text message from a friend. How could we design social platforms as streamlined as IRC? What technologies do we have? HTML works. How do we keep the online experience and rich media we are accustomed to today while going for an affordable architecture. Solving the ads and monetization issue should be tackled from multiple angles. Not just asking where the money will come from. I believe more could be discussed about creating sustainable, lightweight solutions as well.