Reverse Network Effects: Why Todays Social Networks Can Fail as They Grow Larger
wired.com
wired.com
Both of those features differentiated us from the competitors, and as you aptly point out, it has a nice side effect of keeping people on the platform who might otherwise leave (although that wasn't an intended consequence).
This is done by joining better subreddits, and/or adding them to multis.
Just checked and fortunately scrolldit is back up so my reddit reading will probably go back up too :D
Wait it's.. actually pretty awesome! Still, I wouldn't trade the main UI for it lol.
http://shirky.com/writings/community_scale.html
http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/herecomese...
https://www.amazon.com/Here-Comes-Everybody-Organizing-Organ...
"LinkedIn creates friction by preventing users from communicating with distant connections. This ensures that users do not receive unsolicited messages. This also allows LinkedIn to offer frictionless access (OpenMail) as a premium value proposition."
I'd say my inmail is 95% unsolicited messages from people who have bought access.
Having the paid, 'message indiscriminately' feature undermines that. So if the intention is to reduce unsolicited messages to reduce spam then it doesn't work.
I think the intention actually is to reduce spam from those who don't pay for it. So yes, working as intended.
Now, it doesn't matter what you use to create such a network, be that email list, facebook group, whatsapp, or fill in the blank.
No company or platform have been able to "create" such a social network for you. The best they can do, is provide appropriate tools for you to create your network.
And as far as I can tell, email lists still serve that purpose, irrespective of the hype the platforms like Facebook, Slack etc may generate.
This is not quite true. For many people you go to facebook and your friends are already there ... you friend a few and others friend you.
> The best they can do, is provide appropriate tools for you to create your network.
or perhaps they "provide appropriate tools for your friends to create your network"
As I mentioned in my first comment, you create network with whom you wish to create network with. So it doesn't matter where your friends are (be that Facebook, or at home, just a phone call away); it is you who is going to reach out to them, to create a social network.
> provide appropriate tools for your friends to create your network
Each individual creates his or her own network. So if someone reaches you first, seeking your company to get you into their network, it is as same as you reaching them, asking them to join yours.
My ultimate point is, that the "platform" does not create a social network (for humans). The best they can do, is create bells, whistles and tools. Humans create their own social network.
I think that's why it's been able to get away with a poor recommendation system and a broken comment system.
But that's also a reason that fixing these things would be very hard - there's no network consensus concerning what is the users want.
Edit: this relates "nicely" with the post concerning using deep learning in the youtube recommendation system. The sophistication of math deployed is impressive yet the responses uniformly deplore the result. I am suspecting now a big part is that the system broadly never knew "what it wanted" (what is a successful recommendation? Something people click on? etc).
I think this is actually "cause for learning" rather than complaining. I think the OP gives a good analysis of the tradeoffs involved in creating content. I'm not sure if a deep learning system can make tradeoffs out of the box. Perhaps Google could consider non-zero sum game theory for this and use some of their lessons from AlphaGo.
Since it was long ago for you, you should try it again. I am quite pleased with its suggestions as of recently.
There are so many use cases to Youtube that recommendations can never be good.
I want it to recommend music I have heard, for when I use youtube as a radio, but I also want it to recommend me new music in the same genre, although sometimes I want to hear something completely different and want that recommended.
I want it to recommend funny videos I've seen when I'm you youtubing with a friend ("Oh, yeah! Did you see this one? You have to see this one!")
I don't want it to show me funny videos I've seen when I'm watching youtube alone.
Facebook has become massively popular and is still growing. While I am not particularly active on it, I recognize this is atypical. Think about how many devs ise FB OAuth for example, as it is insanely prolific.
Networks can fail at any time, but very few have after reaching escape velocity. Probably the most notable was AOL/IM and more recently the significant degradation of reddit. Networks must seriously mess up accross the 3 main identified categories, and not keep any pace with their users changing needs.
I would say the biggest threat to networks at scale, which oddly wasnt really discussed, is a failure to monetize or convert their network into value. Many people find twitter useful, for example, but it is rumored to be shopping itself around. If anything, the danger of networks is expecting data and adrevenue to be a sustainable business at scale. Obviously, it is a good problem to have 500million plus active users, but it is expensive and difficult. It is harder, one might inagine, to have 50m paying users.
But are they real users? There are lots of reports of many "users" being bots or sharecroppers on click farms.
My point: maybe Facebook is the first online-city and is here forever.
Ps: so far I am the only e-hermit I know that has left FB. Yet, once my kids grow and join FB I may need to re-join to go visit them.
I have also completely rejected their platform(s). A lot of people say this will destroy your social life, but the real city where I am always provides more than enough to enjoy.
I think your children will visit you in whatever place you like to live :)
-- My daughters 10 year old friend on the merits of social networking
They were in a unique position to make it work, and then failed.
With make it work, I mean that everybody moves in different circles, family, work, friends, hobbies, etc. And you need to have easy control over who sees what.
And Facebook has most of it, except that last bit of UI to make it work.
(Not that I like Facebook)
In fact, I'd say the more people around that you don't know or relate to is actually detrimental to community spirit.
I do use it, but we tend to arrange Skype "calls" ahead of time and out-of-band (e.g., by email). Unlike "real" social networks, I don't log in to Skype just to see what's going on in the world or with my friends.
Facebook is slowly becoming peoples new rolodex/contact list. For this, it needs everybody to be on. Phones are only good if there are somebody to call.
However, as a discussion forum / news site, it can be uncool to have to listen to all those people who aren't your real friends.