3 ms·

It's so dumb. Someone please explain how a social network is supposed to succeed when it's invite-only? Hype alone won't carry it. IMO, being invite-only is

It's so dumb. Someone please explain how a social network is supposed to succeed when it's invite-only? Hype alone won't carry it. IMO, being invite-only is THE reason Google+ failed. There were so many memes about people getting excited for an invite, getting on, and then finding only a couple people they knew were on it, if any at all. For a social network to work, it needs to be a network. Limiting on-boarding eliminates the network, and so people lose interest fast.

fliggertiggy 3y ago
I think it's supposed to create a feeling of scarcity or exclusivity and make people perceive the network as more valuable.
- dymk 3y ago
  No, it's because their servers would fall over if it was public registration, and they wouldn't be able to keep up with moderation
haswell 3y ago
> Someone please explain how a social network is supposed to succeed when it's invite-only? Hype alone won't carry it. It may be that the industry has evolved to a degree that this is no longer viable (I also don’t know if I believe this…), but invite-only or otherwise limited launches formed the backbone of the current web. Facebook was only available if you had a school address. Gmail was only available via invite. Obviously a service can’t stay in a limited state forever and the hype will run out, but it’s not exactly a new approach to limiting access early in the life of a service. Google+ failed because Google killed it. I never experienced what you describe, but admittedly got an invite very early, and interacted with people who had also gotten the same thing. Limiting onboarding does not eliminate the network. It just limits it. Again, to your point, this can’t last forever, but is not by itself the issue as long as they continue to scale up access. There are plenty of other issues that will make or break a network.
- zappb 3y ago
  Gmail interoperated with other email providers, so invites worked. Facebook limited signups based on email domain names, not invite codes, so everyone in those email domains could sign up at the same time. Google+, like Bluesky, started with invite codes without a way for communities to join organically.
leplen 3y ago
The theory behind invite only is that it increases the density of the network. You invite people with similar interests as this the network can nucleate around some niche, rather than being 10,000 people with nothing in common. It's one of the standard plays for overcoming cold-start problems.
mattl 3y ago
Scaling is hard. Invite codes help with that. They’re not terribly hard to find, I’ve several that I’ll happily share with anyone I know from elsewhere.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Because they didn't have capacity a year ago. Gmail was invite-only as well you know.
numpad0 3y ago
I don't know, Google+ seemed fine. It wasn't eating the world, and wasn't clear how it was positioned in their branding, but fine. Bsky is the same; there's unexplainable pressure I feel in there to keep it to an in-group of nicest of people, but fine. It's not derailing into a Mastodon.

fliggertiggy 3y ago

I think it's supposed to create a feeling of scarcity or exclusivity and make people perceive the network as more valuable.

dymk 3y ago
No, it's because their servers would fall over if it was public registration, and they wouldn't be able to keep up with moderation

haswell 3y ago

> Someone please explain how a social network is supposed to succeed when it's invite-only? Hype alone won't carry it. It may be that the industry has evolved to a degree that this is no longer viable (I also don’t know if I believe this…), but invite-only or otherwise limited launches formed the backbone of the current web. Facebook was only available if you had a school address. Gmail was only available via invite. Obviously a service can’t stay in a limited state forever and the hype will run out, but it’s not exactly a new approach to limiting access early in the life of a service. Google+ failed because Google killed it. I never experienced what you describe, but admittedly got an invite very early, and interacted with people who had also gotten the same thing. Limiting onboarding does not eliminate the network. It just limits it. Again, to your point, this can’t last forever, but is not by itself the issue as long as they continue to scale up access. There are plenty of other issues that will make or break a network.

zappb 3y ago
Gmail interoperated with other email providers, so invites worked. Facebook limited signups based on email domain names, not invite codes, so everyone in those email domains could sign up at the same time. Google+, like Bluesky, started with invite codes without a way for communities to join organically.

leplen 3y ago

The theory behind invite only is that it increases the density of the network. You invite people with similar interests as this the network can nucleate around some niche, rather than being 10,000 people with nothing in common. It's one of the standard plays for overcoming cold-start problems.

mattl 3y ago

Scaling is hard. Invite codes help with that. They’re not terribly hard to find, I’ve several that I’ll happily share with anyone I know from elsewhere.

anigbrowl 3y ago

Because they didn't have capacity a year ago. Gmail was invite-only as well you know.

numpad0 3y ago

I don't know, Google+ seemed fine. It wasn't eating the world, and wasn't clear how it was positioned in their branding, but fine. Bsky is the same; there's unexplainable pressure I feel in there to keep it to an in-group of nicest of people, but fine. It's not derailing into a Mastodon.