I also would like if messaging would be handled by something like an email address (like Facebook added and then removed once upon a time), or better yet a derivative of email that's easier to self-host and encrypted by default (maybe something like matrix.org).
To me, working to break down the huge silos is the best thing a non-profit social network could bring. And, to be completely honest, I'm not sure I'd even join it, because in this system I'd be able to participate without joining the network so I could just self-host my website (and RSS feed) and use my own feed reader as I do now.
EDIT to expand on this after thinking about it a bit. Since podcasting has been the most successful use case for RSS so far, perhaps a good way to go forward with the above idea would be to allow attaching arbitrary files to posts, and to embed images/audio/video (as they're be embedded on Facebook). This would make it easy to host a podcast/video feed, or image feed on the network while still being a part of the larger open podcasting/video/visual art communities, and it'd be easy to follow. This could provide a decent avenue for advertising the network to certain segments of potential users. And (as long as you embedded items with simple img/audio/video html tags) communities like the free software community and the open web community would probably be pretty ecstatic about it at the very least.
If you're working on a social network, can you share more about what you're thinking about building and what stage you're at?
If you're not paying for the product, you are the product. That's why I only use social networks with a realistic monthly/annual fee, like Xing.com or meetup.com.
A lot of Facebook's infrastructure is about advertising and tracking. Also, if you could run some kind of P2P social network you distribute a lot of the costs.
So I disagree that the choice is between a large corporate-owned social network or no social network at all. A non-profit network is feasible, if tremendously difficult.
I like how DHH thinks about it. Make a simple product (with his own words: it is not rocket surgery) which solves problems, do it for-profit and put a price on it. After earning your salary and paying your bills you can still do rocket surgery for fun and give back to the community. Or do it also for profit promoting yourself as a professional or even your product. That's totally fine for me because in Rework he even points out that this is the part of the Basecamp marketing strategy (Out-teach your competition).
If someone brands his social network as "non-profit" only to put ads on my screen hoping for my paid op-out, that is not OK for me. I trust humans who work for real money and sometimes give back to the community but I don't trust saints.
Anyhow, we may be different and that is totally OK.
Why because VC only fund monopolies and the stock market rewards giant hoards of cash off-shore. Is it fueled by jealousy, some, but imagine if all the businesses your talking about didn't have to pay 70 cents a click to advertise and they were rotated or some other more user friendly way display ads. or if you bought enough through a marketplace to cover your own costs you didn't need to see any ads.
Non-profits aren't bound to maximize profits they just have to cover costs.
I think it would be more of a protocol than a service.
I think it's focus would be on control and transparency. Of course, salaries have to be paid etc. but as the large companies control more and more of communication, distribution, and marketplaces (all of which are winner take all markets) I see serious problems ahead.
Especially the way VCs have skewed business growth with their herd mentality and the stock market not punishing tech companies for hoarding money and not paying out dividends.
This is in my understanding "for-profit".
> Telegram is supported by the Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov,[9] who is now a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis,[10] travelling the world in self-imposed exile.[11] Its client-side code is open-source software, whereas its server-side code is closed-sourced and proprietary.
But, to me those are the types of battles you would need to be willing to die for as well as your sons and daughters because your enemies are.
Not everyone is paranoid about government espionage, data mining, etc, but if you are, then you'll have to deal with the additional baggage that anonymity brings to the table.
Bonus points for using or interfacing to standards like e-mail, RSS, IRC and the like. Additionally if most of the infrastructure is peer-to-peer. For example a social network based on WebRTC. This way a lot of centralized infrastructure goes away.
I am still quite saddened hat Snake, the cryptographic social network, didn't get the appropriate funding when proposed on indiegogo. https://snake.li/
I think I'd much rather join a network where I'm in control of data. With tech-progress in p2p and the blockchains, I think the building blocks are already present for this kind of a network. If this were run by a non-profit, all the better.