6 ms·

Most of the comments are focused on the author's trivial mistake (when was this information surfaced: now, or at launch?). His substantive point is more valuabl

Most of the comments are focused on the author's trivial mistake (when was this information surfaced: now, or at launch?). His substantive point is more valuable to bring to light. Perhaps the fact that there are top-users lists highlights the tension between what Snapchat says that people use it for (sharing brief moments with friends) vs what people actually use it for. In fact, I actually use Snapchat for sharing photos with friends, and I still would prefer that this network information disappear. The existence of a top list suggests that there is quite a bit of metadata retained long after the photos are (ostensibly) destroyed. It implies that the company is building a database that could be used to reconstruct an enormous network diagram.

jmduke 13y ago
> It implies that the company is building a database that could be used to reconstruct an enormous network diagram. It's actually fun and trivial to do this yourself with a spider: go to http://www.snapchat.com/username http://www.snapchat.com/username, mark 'best friendships' as followthroughs. A fun thing you notice pretty quickly is that the 'best friend' designation isn't one-to-one, prolific snappers will appear often in peoples' friends lists. I think a SnapChat API is likely on the way, and once they figure out a way to market this stuff to advertisers (hey, ten seconds of undivided attention towards an ad is probably worth more than thirty seconds of ignoring a commercial) they're going to have a whole new host of problems.
- bennyg 13y ago
  That's the day I stop using it. If I get a few second ad every 4 or 5 snaps then I won't continue my usage of the app. I understand that good things that require monetary value to continue operating at scale need to have a way to make money, but advertising should be a last-resort option. We haven't even seen for-pay snaps yet (more seconds, more options like random clip-art to add in, etc). Advertising kills the product 9 times out of 10.
  - dave5104 13y ago
    I'm on the opposite end there. I would never pay money for extra snap options. I'd much rather see ads if choosing between the two.
    - bennyg 13y ago
      Those two aren't all the options though. 1.) Pay for SnapPro 2.) Sit through advertisements 3.) Let people who want to pay for SnapPro pay, while you don't because you don't want to pay for it. Therefore no ads, and Snapchat is making money. Option 3 is the best for consumers. Option 3 is possible if the price-point dictates that enough people will pay for it to remain alive and well. Not everyone will pay. But when is that not always the case?
      - moheeb 13y ago
        You've been brainwashed. The best option for consumers is for it to be free, with no ads.
        Groxx 13y ago
        because it's best for consumers when things they like go away?
        bennyg 13y ago
        Exactly my point. Option 3 is free for everyone with optional purchases for those that want it. The parent of my comment would rather see ads than purchase Pro. But those aren't mutually exclusive. He/She can still not see ads and not purchase pro while Snapchat makes money.
        dave5104 13y ago
        I certainly wouldn't complain about option 3... but I'd be very weary of whether that would be /enough/ for Snapchat.
        13y ago
pkfrank 13y ago
Spot-on. If people would stop playing "gotcha" and focus on the substance of this post, we'd have much more substantial and valuable conversation. Snapchat has always positioned itself as a temporal messaging app, where anything goes - but only for a few seconds. It's always meant to be the foil to our Facebook, Google+, et. al., culture of heavy-hitting, abundant, follow-you-everywhere data trails. Why they would embrace this functionality - betraying their core value-proposition - is puzzling. Whether this data has been theoretically accessible for some time now is somewhat immaterial - unless we're collectively proving our cleverness by correcting the author. The take-away is that Snapchat has seemingly flipped it's core promise - a non-permanent trail and ostensible privacy - by including this "top friends" feature.
- AJ007 13y ago
  Snapchat proves there is a huge market for privacy. The secondary issue is trusting that the privacy is as advertised. Developers should seize on both.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    I hadn't thought of it this way but yes, it does. However, the trust part is extremely difficult. Savvy users know that they can't trust 3rd parties with data and usually talk about encryption, self-hosting, P2P etc (that kind of stuff). i.e. not really 'trust' per se but more that privacy is 'built in'. Normal users (the vast majority), don't understand this stuff so the only thing they can do is have some faith in the company/service and carry on blindly (until they get burned). Trying educate your market is a sure-fire way to go out of business. I don't know how developers can seize this without users already understanding why security/privacy (at a technical level) matters.
asr2bd 13y ago
Some friends of mine made a webapp at PennApps to visualize your Snapchat social graph by scraping the public profiles: http://snapgraph.me/ http://snapgraph.me/ Even if Snapchat isn't making a big network diagram it's certainly possible to create one.

jmduke 13y ago

> It implies that the company is building a database that could be used to reconstruct an enormous network diagram. It's actually fun and trivial to do this yourself with a spider: go to http://www.snapchat.com/username http://www.snapchat.com/username, mark 'best friendships' as followthroughs. A fun thing you notice pretty quickly is that the 'best friend' designation isn't one-to-one, prolific snappers will appear often in peoples' friends lists. I think a SnapChat API is likely on the way, and once they figure out a way to market this stuff to advertisers (hey, ten seconds of undivided attention towards an ad is probably worth more than thirty seconds of ignoring a commercial) they're going to have a whole new host of problems.

bennyg 13y ago
That's the day I stop using it. If I get a few second ad every 4 or 5 snaps then I won't continue my usage of the app. I understand that good things that require monetary value to continue operating at scale need to have a way to make money, but advertising should be a last-resort option. We haven't even seen for-pay snaps yet (more seconds, more options like random clip-art to add in, etc). Advertising kills the product 9 times out of 10.
- dave5104 13y ago
  I'm on the opposite end there. I would never pay money for extra snap options. I'd much rather see ads if choosing between the two.
  - bennyg 13y ago
    Those two aren't all the options though. 1.) Pay for SnapPro 2.) Sit through advertisements 3.) Let people who want to pay for SnapPro pay, while you don't because you don't want to pay for it. Therefore no ads, and Snapchat is making money. Option 3 is the best for consumers. Option 3 is possible if the price-point dictates that enough people will pay for it to remain alive and well. Not everyone will pay. But when is that not always the case?
    - moheeb 13y ago
      You've been brainwashed. The best option for consumers is for it to be free, with no ads.
      - Groxx 13y ago
        because it's best for consumers when things they like go away?
      - bennyg 13y ago
        Exactly my point. Option 3 is free for everyone with optional purchases for those that want it. The parent of my comment would rather see ads than purchase Pro. But those aren't mutually exclusive. He/She can still not see ads and not purchase pro while Snapchat makes money.
        dave5104 13y ago
        I certainly wouldn't complain about option 3... but I'd be very weary of whether that would be /enough/ for Snapchat.
      - 13y ago

pkfrank 13y ago

Spot-on. If people would stop playing "gotcha" and focus on the substance of this post, we'd have much more substantial and valuable conversation. Snapchat has always positioned itself as a temporal messaging app, where anything goes - but only for a few seconds. It's always meant to be the foil to our Facebook, Google+, et. al., culture of heavy-hitting, abundant, follow-you-everywhere data trails. Why they would embrace this functionality - betraying their core value-proposition - is puzzling. Whether this data has been theoretically accessible for some time now is somewhat immaterial - unless we're collectively proving our cleverness by correcting the author. The take-away is that Snapchat has seemingly flipped it's core promise - a non-permanent trail and ostensible privacy - by including this "top friends" feature.

AJ007 13y ago
Snapchat proves there is a huge market for privacy. The secondary issue is trusting that the privacy is as advertised. Developers should seize on both.
- amirmc 13y ago
  I hadn't thought of it this way but yes, it does. However, the trust part is extremely difficult. Savvy users know that they can't trust 3rd parties with data and usually talk about encryption, self-hosting, P2P etc (that kind of stuff). i.e. not really 'trust' per se but more that privacy is 'built in'. Normal users (the vast majority), don't understand this stuff so the only thing they can do is have some faith in the company/service and carry on blindly (until they get burned). Trying educate your market is a sure-fire way to go out of business. I don't know how developers can seize this without users already understanding why security/privacy (at a technical level) matters.

asr2bd 13y ago

Some friends of mine made a webapp at PennApps to visualize your Snapchat social graph by scraping the public profiles: http://snapgraph.me/ http://snapgraph.me/ Even if Snapchat isn't making a big network diagram it's certainly possible to create one.