6 ms·

I hate Facebook, but I don't plan to stop using it anytime soon. Well - I don't hate everything about it, but I hate everything they're trying to do, so I agree

by ajkjk 11y ago

I hate Facebook, but I don't plan to stop using it anytime soon. Well - I don't hate everything about it, but I hate everything they're trying to do, so I agree with this article. But "hate"ing a company is odd, so I guess I really mean "I want to have nothing to do with". I'll switch when there's a dominating replacement. All I want, for the rest of my life, is: - a way to see updates from friends and acquaintances and people I've fallen out of contact with, and post mine for them. - a way to search for and 'add' people I meet. - a way to chat with those people (including in groups) - all of those things, without social baggage that constrains it to 'only teenagers' or 'only colleagues and classmates' etc. - and in a network that contains most people I meet, or doesn't have social baggage that prevents most people from being willing to join it. To me it's an enriched version of what I get by having lots of contacts in my phone or email address book: exactly a list of people, plus the additional fact that I feel physically near them in some sense (and I think this is a concrete emotional thing. My family and friends don't feel too far away when I get to see snippets of their life streamed into mine). Everything else - groups, events, pokes, company pages, apps, games, friend suggestions, wall posts, public about-me sections, places, reviews, ads, etc... I don't care about any of it. Maybe something that trims off all this fat would be innocuous enough to actually find adoption. I could see it living in some peer-to-peer structure too, but it has to still be absolutely trivial for anyone to join.

higherpurpose 11y ago
In other words - the Internet. You don't need to do all those things in a single place, or even in multiple places, but all owned by the same company. The fact that people want to use Instagram, Vine, Snapchat and Whatsapp is proof many people don't want a single service for everything. It's just unfortunate that Facebook happens to have acquired many of those.
- rimantas 11y ago
  > In other words - the Internet. Can you explain a bit more, because it sounds really strange.
  - castell 11y ago
    In the mid nineties many early web users had their own web space with a "fancy" (back then) static website in Frontpage/Dreamweaver, it was more or less hassle free. Back then the ISPs usually provided free webspace and free email accounts. If everyone has access to a hassle free webspace with social/cloud software (blog, image sharing, file directory), then there would be less need for a central service. Obviously, things have changed. Maybe the OP is talking about that.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    I think where it makes sense a couple different social networks will come to rule the roost, so to speak. Facebook may well evolve into most of them. You have close friends/family, loose friends, alumni, acquaintances, clubs, and other interest groups. I think that those other interest groups will probably come to break off into custom sub-sites with their own message boards and chat. I think clubs are well suited to discovery by FB, meetup and the like, but a bit too restricted in practice. The corporate attempts to gather "likes" is B.S. mostly. What you want potential coworkers to see isn't the same as friends/family... In the end it's all muddled currently, and I think things may break apart a bit in the near future.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    It's a series of tubes that let you communicate information, but that's not important right now.
- jug 11y ago
  Yes, Facebook is realizing this and that's why they're doing these rounds of purchases rather than trying to build something own and extend Facebook.com. Ironically enough, I don't think they always prefer to strengthen their own brand because they understand the psychology behind end user decisions. Thinking of it, it's interesting how long ago Facebook last changed functionality-wise. I don't like them that much, but I do think Facebook does a decent job of predicting trends. That's also why I think we'll have Facebook around for a long time. In a few years, people may not even think of that they're using Facebook services since they've further specialized and added various apps, all under the Facebook umbrella but only on the back end. I think Facebook is even on their way of breaking out the friend contacts part from their main site, with Messenger.com now an own website, and other Messenger platform changes like games. I think that where Facebook wants to go is to no longer require any user to actually use Facebook to stay in touch (we now have Messenger, Groups, Snapchat, Instagram), so that Facebook only becomes a place that pulls them all together (except for sensitive users like youth who don't want Snapchat to get involved with parents). For those who fancy that.
  - castell 11y ago
    > except for sensitive users like youth who don't want Snapchat to get involved with parents That's a common tipping point that lead to unfavorable side effects.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  > proof Is there a service that does everything? I don't see how you connect your proof to what people actually want. It seems more likely that people will just use what is immediately available to them.
- ajkjk 11y ago
  I really want to be able to do PARTS of these apps all in one place. They can keep their individual responsibilities after that. To be a bit dramatic, I get frustrated whenever: - I have to choose between identity platforms to sign up for a site. I wouldn't be sad if there was an option (e) that was open source, transparent, not planning to monetize me, and easy to integrate with lots of various apps and services. - I have to come up with credentials to a new website - I have to remember what apps and services I've signed up for - I have to save data on two different distributed file systems that don't interop. - I have to connect with the same person on two different platforms. Or, I have to decide how much of my life I want a person to be able to see on two different platforms. - I have to figure out if I'm okay with the privacy and security of various platforms on which I have an identity. - I have to fill out a form with data I've already given to a service on the web. - I discover that a friend uses a service I also use and I just wasn't aware of it. - I have to choose between text, email, snapchat, FB message, gchat, Skype, Whatsapp, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Instagram based on what (I've memorized) a particular friend or colleague uses. I don't mind the different services doing different things. Users do want to use Instagram for Instagram things and SnapChat for SnapChat things. I just don't like the part where they're all mostly standalone but solving the same problems over and over and forcing me to jump through the same hoops over and over for no benefit. But I don't trust any existing system to aggregate these responsibilities either. I barely and reluctantly trust Google/FB/Twitter enough to use them for identity services across multiple sites, just because the alternative is so painful that I have to.
jsingleton 11y ago
Maybe https://diasporafoundation.org https://diasporafoundation.org is what you are looking for?
- Heliosmaster 11y ago
  In principle yes. But unless enough of the people that he wants to connect with (past/present) are in it, then most of the points are unfeasible.
tracker1 11y ago
For me the dichotomy becomes which groups really see what... you have: - family & close friends - acquaintances & loose friends - school alum - social groups / clubs - those who you might work with/for - linked in, you failed this audience - interests beyond clubs, outside acquantances No social network does a good job at allowing a person to share with those groups as desired. What I share on twitter is far more techie than what my friends/family on FB care about (mental note, disconnect twitter from fb). What I follow on twitter doesn't line up with what I post (I also see way to much to actually track twitter or fb, I pop in every few days, and only see the top of the feed). most of the people on FB are more acquaintances or past friends from social groups, and some family. The reality is that what will probably "win" will be a few discrete social networks... one for your career (probably not linkedin), a new one for your family and close friends, facebook for your loose friends and acquantences... and something closer to bulletin boards and/or webchat for social interest groups (probably not meetup). I don't think the one site to rule them all will survive in the long run. And those groups trying to do so with facebook, twitter and pinterest are failing... those trying to build business models that aren't bought are failing.
- IanCal 11y ago
  > No social network does a good job at allowing a person to share with those groups as desired. Doesn't g+ solve this with the whole "circles" idea? You control which groups you share with.
  - hessenwolf 11y ago
    I think linkedin's groups solve it a bit better. The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed. It's more consumption than distribution focused.
    - IanCal 11y ago
      > The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here. If they don't want to 'follow' you, why would you expect to send them things? > I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed You can choose which circle(s) you wish to share with, is that not controlling your output feed? People can filter their input (who they have in their circles) and their output (which circles they share each piece of content with). I suppose you can't follow a chosen subset of a single users output, unless you can do something fancy with tagging.
ohw 11y ago
What you described is exactly what WeChat is able to do and doing well. It has a half billion users (including every Chinese I know) yet comes with no social baggage. If you don't like the social features (called Moments) you can turn it off, or simply use WeChat as an IM and hardly notice the existence of all the other features (there are not many anyway) So your enriched version of address book does exist, but only in China, and it is one of the few things I miss so much when living outside China.
- ajkjk 11y ago
  Interesting. I've never even heard of it. Any perspective on why it hasn't caught on elsewhere? (besides just our not hearing of it?) Though, I guess, as a tech person, I have the additional preference that whatever I use be fairly open (open-source somehow if possible) and not liable to doing things like selling user data or onboarding corporate partnerships in an attempt to monetize. Even though I know how silly it is to ask for an amazing product for free with no mechanism for generating revenue and a promise not to try to come up with one. Actually, I think I would pay for such a thing. Actually, I know of Diaspora and Ello having tried this in some capacity, but neither caught on for various reasons.

by ajkjk 11y ago

higherpurpose 11y ago

In other words - the Internet. You don't need to do all those things in a single place, or even in multiple places, but all owned by the same company. The fact that people want to use Instagram, Vine, Snapchat and Whatsapp is proof many people don't want a single service for everything. It's just unfortunate that Facebook happens to have acquired many of those.

rimantas 11y ago
> In other words - the Internet. Can you explain a bit more, because it sounds really strange.
- castell 11y ago
  In the mid nineties many early web users had their own web space with a "fancy" (back then) static website in Frontpage/Dreamweaver, it was more or less hassle free. Back then the ISPs usually provided free webspace and free email accounts. If everyone has access to a hassle free webspace with social/cloud software (blog, image sharing, file directory), then there would be less need for a central service. Obviously, things have changed. Maybe the OP is talking about that.
- tracker1 11y ago
  I think where it makes sense a couple different social networks will come to rule the roost, so to speak. Facebook may well evolve into most of them. You have close friends/family, loose friends, alumni, acquaintances, clubs, and other interest groups. I think that those other interest groups will probably come to break off into custom sub-sites with their own message boards and chat. I think clubs are well suited to discovery by FB, meetup and the like, but a bit too restricted in practice. The corporate attempts to gather "likes" is B.S. mostly. What you want potential coworkers to see isn't the same as friends/family... In the end it's all muddled currently, and I think things may break apart a bit in the near future.
- pjc50 11y ago
  It's a series of tubes that let you communicate information, but that's not important right now.
jug 11y ago
Yes, Facebook is realizing this and that's why they're doing these rounds of purchases rather than trying to build something own and extend Facebook.com. Ironically enough, I don't think they always prefer to strengthen their own brand because they understand the psychology behind end user decisions. Thinking of it, it's interesting how long ago Facebook last changed functionality-wise. I don't like them that much, but I do think Facebook does a decent job of predicting trends. That's also why I think we'll have Facebook around for a long time. In a few years, people may not even think of that they're using Facebook services since they've further specialized and added various apps, all under the Facebook umbrella but only on the back end. I think Facebook is even on their way of breaking out the friend contacts part from their main site, with Messenger.com now an own website, and other Messenger platform changes like games. I think that where Facebook wants to go is to no longer require any user to actually use Facebook to stay in touch (we now have Messenger, Groups, Snapchat, Instagram), so that Facebook only becomes a place that pulls them all together (except for sensitive users like youth who don't want Snapchat to get involved with parents). For those who fancy that.
- castell 11y ago
  > except for sensitive users like youth who don't want Snapchat to get involved with parents That's a common tipping point that lead to unfavorable side effects.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
> proof Is there a service that does everything? I don't see how you connect your proof to what people actually want. It seems more likely that people will just use what is immediately available to them.
ajkjk 11y ago
I really want to be able to do PARTS of these apps all in one place. They can keep their individual responsibilities after that. To be a bit dramatic, I get frustrated whenever: - I have to choose between identity platforms to sign up for a site. I wouldn't be sad if there was an option (e) that was open source, transparent, not planning to monetize me, and easy to integrate with lots of various apps and services. - I have to come up with credentials to a new website - I have to remember what apps and services I've signed up for - I have to save data on two different distributed file systems that don't interop. - I have to connect with the same person on two different platforms. Or, I have to decide how much of my life I want a person to be able to see on two different platforms. - I have to figure out if I'm okay with the privacy and security of various platforms on which I have an identity. - I have to fill out a form with data I've already given to a service on the web. - I discover that a friend uses a service I also use and I just wasn't aware of it. - I have to choose between text, email, snapchat, FB message, gchat, Skype, Whatsapp, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Instagram based on what (I've memorized) a particular friend or colleague uses. I don't mind the different services doing different things. Users do want to use Instagram for Instagram things and SnapChat for SnapChat things. I just don't like the part where they're all mostly standalone but solving the same problems over and over and forcing me to jump through the same hoops over and over for no benefit. But I don't trust any existing system to aggregate these responsibilities either. I barely and reluctantly trust Google/FB/Twitter enough to use them for identity services across multiple sites, just because the alternative is so painful that I have to.

jsingleton 11y ago

Maybe https://diasporafoundation.org https://diasporafoundation.org is what you are looking for?

Heliosmaster 11y ago
In principle yes. But unless enough of the people that he wants to connect with (past/present) are in it, then most of the points are unfeasible.

tracker1 11y ago

For me the dichotomy becomes which groups really see what... you have: - family & close friends - acquaintances & loose friends - school alum - social groups / clubs - those who you might work with/for - linked in, you failed this audience - interests beyond clubs, outside acquantances No social network does a good job at allowing a person to share with those groups as desired. What I share on twitter is far more techie than what my friends/family on FB care about (mental note, disconnect twitter from fb). What I follow on twitter doesn't line up with what I post (I also see way to much to actually track twitter or fb, I pop in every few days, and only see the top of the feed). most of the people on FB are more acquaintances or past friends from social groups, and some family. The reality is that what will probably "win" will be a few discrete social networks... one for your career (probably not linkedin), a new one for your family and close friends, facebook for your loose friends and acquantences... and something closer to bulletin boards and/or webchat for social interest groups (probably not meetup). I don't think the one site to rule them all will survive in the long run. And those groups trying to do so with facebook, twitter and pinterest are failing... those trying to build business models that aren't bought are failing.

IanCal 11y ago
> No social network does a good job at allowing a person to share with those groups as desired. Doesn't g+ solve this with the whole "circles" idea? You control which groups you share with.
- hessenwolf 11y ago
  I think linkedin's groups solve it a bit better. The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed. It's more consumption than distribution focused.
  - IanCal 11y ago
    > The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here. If they don't want to 'follow' you, why would you expect to send them things? > I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed You can choose which circle(s) you wish to share with, is that not controlling your output feed? People can filter their input (who they have in their circles) and their output (which circles they share each piece of content with). I suppose you can't follow a chosen subset of a single users output, unless you can do something fancy with tagging.

ohw 11y ago

What you described is exactly what WeChat is able to do and doing well. It has a half billion users (including every Chinese I know) yet comes with no social baggage. If you don't like the social features (called Moments) you can turn it off, or simply use WeChat as an IM and hardly notice the existence of all the other features (there are not many anyway) So your enriched version of address book does exist, but only in China, and it is one of the few things I miss so much when living outside China.

ajkjk 11y ago
Interesting. I've never even heard of it. Any perspective on why it hasn't caught on elsewhere? (besides just our not hearing of it?) Though, I guess, as a tech person, I have the additional preference that whatever I use be fairly open (open-source somehow if possible) and not liable to doing things like selling user data or onboarding corporate partnerships in an attempt to monetize. Even though I know how silly it is to ask for an amazing product for free with no mechanism for generating revenue and a promise not to try to come up with one. Actually, I think I would pay for such a thing. Actually, I know of Diaspora and Ello having tried this in some capacity, but neither caught on for various reasons.