5 ms·

I quit Facebook years ago. I stay on Twitter because paradoxically it feels like less of a commitment than Facebook. I stay on LinkedIn because... actually I do

I quit Facebook years ago. I stay on Twitter because paradoxically it feels like less of a commitment than Facebook. I stay on LinkedIn because... actually I don't know why. I keep joining and leaving Google+. I keep joining, sometimes by accident. I always leave deliberately. I was at a conference recently and someone asked why Second Life didn't go global. And I answered that it was because it wasn't open and federated. They was a bit of bluster but that is the why. Postal (snail mailing), PSTN (phone-calling), SMS (texting), email (uh, emailing), IRC (chatting?) ... These are all open and federated and have lasted and lasted. No corporation, no matter how massive is ever ever ever going to become 'the social medium' which is what they all want. Eventually we are going to have open federated online social communication. I thought identi.ca had a chance then I thought Diaspora* was going to do it. Maybe I need to invest in setting up some of these services, maybe all us techies do. Maybe what we need is a movement, we probably already have the tech stacks. Also, we need single-sign-on, like yesterday :( Every time these articles come up it's the same ol' same ol'. Actually you know, I'd pay for a Twitter account at this point if only to say, "I trust you, you can keep having my € while I trust you, but as soon as I don't goodbye!"

GuiA 12y ago
> Eventually we are going to have open federated online social communication Is there a true need for it? Everyday people use Facebook and Twitter because it's free, but I highly doubt they'd pay for it. The real "social networks" are text messaging and email as far as most of my non techie friends are concerned.
- igravious 12y ago
  Ah. Thank you. You made me realise something. The difference is, text messaging and email allow you to communicate linguistically with people within your social network in a peer-to-peer (one-to-one) fashion -- whereas a social network platform allows you to define contacts and their relation to you and use a befriend/unfriend, follow/unfollow model where once befriended or followed you automatically get delivered (in theory, unless muted or an algo decides otherwise) broadcast (one-to-many) messages Did I get it right? I think so? Devil's in the details...
AhLondon 12y ago
Twitter is a cocktail party. Facebook is a dinner party. You can flit in and out of a cocktail party easily. LinkedIn is just a map of professional contacts, only useful for figuring out who you need to actually call for something. Google +, beats me. I know people on it, but none who use it.

GuiA 12y ago

> Eventually we are going to have open federated online social communication Is there a true need for it? Everyday people use Facebook and Twitter because it's free, but I highly doubt they'd pay for it. The real "social networks" are text messaging and email as far as most of my non techie friends are concerned.

igravious 12y ago
Ah. Thank you. You made me realise something. The difference is, text messaging and email allow you to communicate linguistically with people within your social network in a peer-to-peer (one-to-one) fashion -- whereas a social network platform allows you to define contacts and their relation to you and use a befriend/unfriend, follow/unfollow model where once befriended or followed you automatically get delivered (in theory, unless muted or an algo decides otherwise) broadcast (one-to-many) messages Did I get it right? I think so? Devil's in the details...

AhLondon 12y ago

Twitter is a cocktail party. Facebook is a dinner party. You can flit in and out of a cocktail party easily. LinkedIn is just a map of professional contacts, only useful for figuring out who you need to actually call for something. Google +, beats me. I know people on it, but none who use it.