5 ms·

The problem I see is that kind of stuff is just not profitable anymore. IMO it shouldn't be a company like FB running a people directory, it should be something

The problem I see is that kind of stuff is just not profitable anymore. IMO it shouldn't be a company like FB running a people directory, it should be something mastodon. The utopian future I would like for social media is if we had a protocol for a people directory social network. It would function in much the same way as facebook pages or your myspace page. Most users will just sign up for a service, technical users will have frameworks and API's they can reach for to build their own "custom" pages. I realize I just described the fediverse but seriously, fediverse needs to go mainstream.

tempe1h1 4y ago
I see this as a consequence of the overarching ideology of markets and capitalism standing in the way of humans exploiting the full potential of digital and internet technologies. at this point this is a social problem to be solved politically
baby 4y ago
> IMO it shouldn't be a company like FB running a people directory, it should be something mastodon It really is not a technological problem, it's a "how do you get everyone to sign up" problem, which FB has solved. I don't think we'll see another company solve this in a very long time, unless they hit the jackpot while really focusing on creating a USEFUL product for their users.
- fragmede 4y ago
  That said, there is a concept of friction for signups, and that's something TikTok does well with their UX. You open the app and are immediately in the app, no sign up. After using the app for a bit you can go and customize your username and such so that you're not a generic username, and you're able to find and be found by friends on the app, but that's optional.
ironlake 4y ago
>fediverse needs to go mainstream. Mastodon has been around for more than five years, and the idea of decentralized social networks long before that. Email, from a user standpoint, was much like Mastodon: a protocol that you consumed with software of your choice. But it was never a great experience for the average user, then gmail made it a great experience. People switched very quickly. The experience has to be first.
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  Just want to highlight that this is a very tech-focused perspective. "If we make it good enough people will use it!" Also is there room in this utopia for people who want their privacy and secrecy? Will they be disadvantaged if they don't participate in this digital phone booth? My gut tells me yes.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Those that don't have Facebook are already disadvantaged in that way. They don't get invited to the party, they aren't told about life updates via the feed. But you soon self-select for friends that don't use Facebook and that do invite you to parties and tell you about things. That same divide isn't going to go away, no matter the technology. (ofc replace Facebook with whatever app is popular with your group.)
    - dimitrios1 4y ago
      Perhaps from your vantage point. My vantage point is more and more people are ditching the social sites for real connections again. A few years ago when privacy issue after privacy issue came out, and the revelations on how manipulated we all are on social media by algorithms, my circle decided to ditch social media. I was always the "pioneer" in this front, having ditched it around 2015 or so. The craziest thing started happening when I got rid of it. I started getting these crazy old things called "phone calls." And people started sending out these really cool decorated cards called "invitations" that apparently come to my house through this really old but fascinating technology called "mail". Real life actual people started walking past me on my neighborhood road and inviting me to house parties or get-togethers again. I met so many wonderful neighbors since! It had this amazing other side effect as well: it acted like a filter for all the events I used to "miss". Suddenly, it's as if the weight of FOMO was lifted off my shoulders. But illustrative snark aside, I suppose its going to vary from circle to circle and group to group. My hunch tells me a lot more people simply tolerate social media because they realize much of society has hitched it's wagon to it, and they see this as an unfortunate thing, and it will take just one person in the group to break the mold.
cpcallen 4y ago
> that kind of stuff is just not profitable anymore. It wasn't profitable back then either, alas—which is why Facebook has repeatedly pivoted to less useful, more annoying, but more monetizable offerings.
- fragmede 4y ago
  Facebook takes in giant piles of money, it just doesn't have the growth wall street has come to expect.
lkrubner 4y ago
"if we had a protocol for a people directory social network" -- back around 2004, that's exactly what FOAF was for (Friend Of A Friend). I set up mine, a lot of people did, there was excitement around the blogosphere for this, but in the end it lost out to walled-gardens like MySpace and then Facebook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology)
ineptech 4y ago
This might make more sense implemented as personal servers. A linux image you own and run in the cloud somewhere, that has whatever server-side software you want (a blog, your important documents, maybe a discord or minecraft server or whatever) that is easy to move around from one cloud provider to another. I know server-side software is traditionally hard to run, but there's no law it has to be that way forever (especially if the cloud hosting providers realized the immense untapped sales potential of regular people suddenly having a use for a cloud server, and underwrote some of the open source software that would make them more useful).

tempe1h1 4y ago

I see this as a consequence of the overarching ideology of markets and capitalism standing in the way of humans exploiting the full potential of digital and internet technologies. at this point this is a social problem to be solved politically

baby 4y ago

> IMO it shouldn't be a company like FB running a people directory, it should be something mastodon It really is not a technological problem, it's a "how do you get everyone to sign up" problem, which FB has solved. I don't think we'll see another company solve this in a very long time, unless they hit the jackpot while really focusing on creating a USEFUL product for their users.

fragmede 4y ago
That said, there is a concept of friction for signups, and that's something TikTok does well with their UX. You open the app and are immediately in the app, no sign up. After using the app for a bit you can go and customize your username and such so that you're not a generic username, and you're able to find and be found by friends on the app, but that's optional.

ironlake 4y ago

>fediverse needs to go mainstream. Mastodon has been around for more than five years, and the idea of decentralized social networks long before that. Email, from a user standpoint, was much like Mastodon: a protocol that you consumed with software of your choice. But it was never a great experience for the average user, then gmail made it a great experience. People switched very quickly. The experience has to be first.

dimitrios1 4y ago
Just want to highlight that this is a very tech-focused perspective. "If we make it good enough people will use it!" Also is there room in this utopia for people who want their privacy and secrecy? Will they be disadvantaged if they don't participate in this digital phone booth? My gut tells me yes.
- fragmede 4y ago
  Those that don't have Facebook are already disadvantaged in that way. They don't get invited to the party, they aren't told about life updates via the feed. But you soon self-select for friends that don't use Facebook and that do invite you to parties and tell you about things. That same divide isn't going to go away, no matter the technology. (ofc replace Facebook with whatever app is popular with your group.)
  - dimitrios1 4y ago
    Perhaps from your vantage point. My vantage point is more and more people are ditching the social sites for real connections again. A few years ago when privacy issue after privacy issue came out, and the revelations on how manipulated we all are on social media by algorithms, my circle decided to ditch social media. I was always the "pioneer" in this front, having ditched it around 2015 or so. The craziest thing started happening when I got rid of it. I started getting these crazy old things called "phone calls." And people started sending out these really cool decorated cards called "invitations" that apparently come to my house through this really old but fascinating technology called "mail". Real life actual people started walking past me on my neighborhood road and inviting me to house parties or get-togethers again. I met so many wonderful neighbors since! It had this amazing other side effect as well: it acted like a filter for all the events I used to "miss". Suddenly, it's as if the weight of FOMO was lifted off my shoulders. But illustrative snark aside, I suppose its going to vary from circle to circle and group to group. My hunch tells me a lot more people simply tolerate social media because they realize much of society has hitched it's wagon to it, and they see this as an unfortunate thing, and it will take just one person in the group to break the mold.

cpcallen 4y ago

> that kind of stuff is just not profitable anymore. It wasn't profitable back then either, alas—which is why Facebook has repeatedly pivoted to less useful, more annoying, but more monetizable offerings.

fragmede 4y ago
Facebook takes in giant piles of money, it just doesn't have the growth wall street has come to expect.

lkrubner 4y ago

"if we had a protocol for a people directory social network" -- back around 2004, that's exactly what FOAF was for (Friend Of A Friend). I set up mine, a lot of people did, there was excitement around the blogosphere for this, but in the end it lost out to walled-gardens like MySpace and then Facebook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology)

ineptech 4y ago

This might make more sense implemented as personal servers. A linux image you own and run in the cloud somewhere, that has whatever server-side software you want (a blog, your important documents, maybe a discord or minecraft server or whatever) that is easy to move around from one cloud provider to another. I know server-side software is traditionally hard to run, but there's no law it has to be that way forever (especially if the cloud hosting providers realized the immense untapped sales potential of regular people suddenly having a use for a cloud server, and underwrote some of the open source software that would make them more useful).