Why There Are No New Social Networks | Hacker News Reader

Why There Are No New Social Networks

theringer.com

46 pointsartsandsci58 comments

Twitch? Github? Lots of "social" going on over there, last I checked. I feel the definition of social is just getting laundered in the article to fit the authors size.

The beauty of the Internet has always been the way sub-nieches grows into their own communities once their parents become too diverse. For me, Facebook always felt like the last monolith that "tried to do it all". It now acquires sub-niches instead.

Right. Everything is social now. The article's argument seems to be a no true scotsman fallacy. Of course there aren't any new facebook clones right now, why create one? But we've seen instagram grow like crazy (which is why FB bought them) and snapchat and twitch and kik and medium and whatsapp and slack, and so on. Things don't have to look exactly like what the previous generation looked like to fill the same ecological niche. Just look at smartphones and tablets (once derided as toys) as people's daily communication devices versus laptops, desktops, and telephones. Times change.

Don't ask "where are the things that look exactly like X social media platform but with different details" (e.g. facebook versus google+) instead ask "where are people spending their social time these days, is it in the same places it's always been or are new places becoming more popular?".

Also, to add on to your point about "sub-niches" one thing that facebook lacks is character, even though one of the primary organizing principles for social spaces is unique character and shared interest (look at HN, for example). People organize socially around interests. One easy way to take on a monolith like facebook is to take a stand, carve out a niche, have a unique character and build a sub-niche there.

from the article: "and then a series of fringe social media services unable to break through"

she's aware of the niche sites and is writing about large general interest sites.

Mastodon was 30k last week, over 200k now. At that rate it looks like it might reach critical mass.

Which social media giant do you suppose will buy/copy* them before they become too much of a threat?

* - edit

This is the correct answer to OP's article title. Any social network that looks viable will be killed in its cradle* or integrated into one of the big boys.

* of course I mean acquired

Perhaps we can convince some hedge funds to subsidize the effort while simultaneously shorting the publicly traded social networks (SNAP won't be eligible for shorting for a few months though :)?

This is an open source, decentralized network. It has many existential threats, but being bought out isn't one of them.

There's nothing to buy... it's a bunch of servers run by individuals.

There isn't really a "them" to buy. It's open source, and there are lots of instances. As it currently stands, if one instance sells to a company, I suspect the vast majority of people will migrate to other instances.

Indeed, I expect that a migration tool will be developed soon for exactly that reason - it's exactly the paranoia-inducing scenario that will provoke the type of person who runs an instance.

I certainly wouldn't sell my instance.

Well, mastodon is completely open source, so it's more of a question of: "Which social media giant will shamelessly copy over mastodon's code and try to beat them at their own game."

Mastodon and most other ostatus projects are free software, licensed AGPL.

none of them. mastodon is not innovative from a UX or business model perspective, it's an explicitly derivative product meant to be like Twitter. there is already a Twitter and it is already not much of a threat to other social networks.

the innovations in mastodon are how the network is administrated and (arguably) the differences in culture that network federation creates as an alternative to a centralized platform. those innovations can't be copied or bought by a company already committed to centralized administration, which is almost certainly a compulsory thing for a for-profit business.

This is good to hear--I'd like to know more about how network federations scale when they approach things like critical mass. I hope they have mechanisms in place to safeguard against influence from centralized platforms.

I think it's awesome that someone is creating a social network that isn't another walled garden. But, will everyday consumers be able to see the value in that? For them, it's just another social network, but without the ads.

No ads and other UX improvements will hopefully translate to more nontechnical users jumping on board. Ideology isn't going to win over the masses alone.

Not only that, but value is relative. Parent commentor's assumption that !walled_garden == value is not going to be true for everyone. Some people like walled gardens. See: Apple customers.

The thing that's really going to get people on board is whether or not the people they want to follow are on there, and actually posting. If people just use things to repost the same things they post to Twitter and FB, and not engage, then that won't be much of a draw.

From what I've seen Mastodon shows an anti-capitalist message in its home page. I'm not surprised it's a left-wing echo chamber comparable to what gab.ai is for the right-wing. I don't understand why would they limit themselves to that. Many of us see the value of open source but are not anti-capitalistic, Marxist, or liberal.

Edit: I made a mistake. I saw that message in this instance: https://oulipo.social/ (the one that was popular a few days ago for not allowing you to use the letter "e") and I believed that to be the default message for a Mastodon instance. Sorry for any confusion.

Ok, I'm not on Mstodon and don't plan to be, but I am rooting for it because it is another federated instance of GNUSocial/pump.io/status.net. If you are going to criticize something [4-day old acct, ahem], at least take the time to understand it (i.e. your contribution indicates Mastodon is another-walled-garden/ mouse trap).

So, what is gab.ai's story on federation?

Mastodon.social? I'm not seeing any kind of anti-capitalist message there.

The opening paragraph is marketting speak so it doesn't out and out say anything anti-capitalist, but the logical inference does try and target those that worry about multinational corporations.

"A decentralized alternative to commercial platforms, it avoids the risks of a single company monopolizing your communication. Pick a server that you trust"

It's offering an alternative to commercial platforms, trying to imply that you wanted that. It's implying that you are at risk and at the mercy of a monopoly.

Ultimately it will fail, playing on people's fears backfires. Always play to your strengths.

It's hard for new entrants because Facebook is being responsive to its users. This isn't sustainable over the long term, people at the top will change and priority will shift to short term fiscal returns.

Each instance can have it's own spin of the network. There's a right wing instance, and there's a left wing instance. It's up to you to choose an instance, or create one yourself! Mastodon itself has such message that you're describing. The official instance is: mastodon.social. I personally chose mastodon.network.

how can a piece like this not even mention reddit?

admittedly, its not as popular as facebook, but it seems to be a 'newer' paradigm of social network than the big ones.

more unmentioned platforms include tinder and other purpose-driven social networks like quora and meetup.

Reddit started 2005. How is it new?

How about Imgur, then? Which has become a minimalist photo-specific Reddit, of sorts.

Is there an open source forum-CMS like phpBB that works like imgur but can be self hosted? Discourse would be the only candidate I can think of and I don't think I could teach my welder buddy to admin it for his welding group (he doesn't like FB).

It should be mentioned in these types of lists. It's not fair to say "Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and Snapchat... and the rest". Reddit is huge

Not just in DAU either. Mind-share wise, it has a huge influence on the wider web and is increasingly the platform for content stealers (the 9gags, buzzfeeds, and facebook pages).

9gag has been caught time and time again using bots to just rip off whatever was trending on reddit's r/all feed (most obvious when they copy SubRedditSimulator, which is just a Markov Chain recombination of other trending posts).

This has been going on for years.

How is Tinder a social network?

It may not mention Reddit, but you can be sure that all the social networks used core ideas from it.

Community voting in general was popularized on Reddit (and Digg before that) and then the big guys started implementing it on their own networks in the late 2000's. I'm talking about all those thumbs up/down functions that eventually showed up on Youtube, Facebook, etc.

I just recently launched a SaaS that is now trying to do the same for traditional bloggers since they've been left behind more than anyone.

>Community voting in general was popularized on Reddit (and Digg before that) and then the big guys started implementing it on their own networks in the late 2000's.

Does anyone have a history of community voting / moderation? Slashdot is really the first example that I can think of, but what, if anything, was before that? And is anyone else doing the multi-dimensional sorting like Slashdot (Informative / Interesting / Funny). That seems like something that might be due to make a come back.

Came here to say the same thing. It seems like a complete oversight to not even mention reddit, but bring up platforms like Yik Yak.

For my 2 cents, reddit's model is absolutely the road forward for long-term sustainability below the Twitter-Facebook level. Subreddits give the ability for the larger community to grow horizontally in a perpetual, organic way.

Barring any really site-wide admin screw up, reddit will continue to enjoy its position. It's already weathered enough turmoil and scandal that I don't see it ever going the way of Digg.

Reddit to me seems more like a forum with a ton of users that I personally have little connection to. I'm absolutely okay with that. I get a lot of value out of it but it just doesn't feel like a social network. You can use things like local subreddits to meet up with people but it doesn't seem like a conventional social network to me.

The article is just not doing a very good job of identifying social networks. Whatsapp is BIG. There are also many non-US base social network, like WeChat, that was not on their radar screen.

EDIT: I should explain myself more.

For my mom, her social network is a paper address book and her phone. That's the technology she use to get in touch with her friends.

Whatapps has the necessary technology and feature. What makes it a "social network" in this context is the adoption. If a large number of your peers are using it as a main way to get in touch, it is their "social network". You may not think of it as such because it looks different than Facebook. But this will become more apparent if you are aware how much penetration it has in some communities.

what's social about WhatsApp? last time i checked it was IM client for chatting and calling

I.e. it is a social network.

so by your definition any messenger is social network, any network carrier is actually social network, I think you got your definition wrong compared to what people understand under term social network

If people's understanding of social network is something similar Facebook, then this understanding is too confined. The key is to observe how people adopt the technology. My extended family are geographically dispersed. They have since formed a group using WeChat. Now they are sharing stuff in the group daily. I get to know them more than ever. This is absolutely functioning as a social network.

so teleconference is social network?

Do you teleconference your friends and family regularly? My guess is not. But it is always possible a new video app will comes up next year and gain wide adoption.

Today some number of people use Skype to video chat with friends and family regularly. So yes, Skype is also a social network.

That's a broader definition than I usually see applied to "social network". By your definition, I was part of a half-dozen social networks (IM platforms) for years before any of the current "social networks" existed.

Possibly. Like I say my mom has her social network.

Whatsapp isn't a social network, is it?

It has its own Snapchat Stories now.

It is very much a social network. That's the place I go to for group chat, catching up with friends and share irrelevant stuff. It wasn't branded as such. But it is entirely social.

WhatsApp and SMS/MMS chat groups are now my de-facto social network. I just wish they were a bit more feature-filled (not overboard like Facebook Messenger) but that's how my social network has evolved over time. It's almost like Facebook is where I go to see information about people I'm not close to.

It'll be interesting to see how Facebook tries to monetize WhatsApp while balancing privacy issues.

I know Mastodon is only for super-nerds right now and probably won't become big. But if it does it'll be SUPER interesting, since it can't be bought. Sorta misleading to mention Mastodon without noting that.

> since it can't be bought

This is not precisely true. Read some of this description in the FAQ [1]:

> What is mastodon.social? The "flagship" instance of Mastodon, aka the server I run myself with the latest code. It's not supposed to be the only instance in the end.

> What else is part of the federated network? Let's call it the "fediverse". It has existed for a longer while, populated by GNU social servers, Friendica, Hubzilla, Diaspora etc. Not every one of those servers is fully compatible with every other. Mastodon strives to be fully standards-compliant and compatibility with GNU social is higher in priority than the others.

> I tried logging into a GNU social client app with Mastodon and it didn't work, why? While Mastodon is compatible with GNU social in terms of server to server communication, the client to server API (aka how you access Mastodon) is different. Therefore, client apps that were made for specifically GNU social will not work with Mastodon. The reason for this is half technical, half ideological.

While I applaud the ideals espoused in these paragraphs - and completely understand the technical reasons why it's not compatible with some older protocols, why there is a flagship instance, and so on - imagine for a minute that the current developers were supplemented/replaced with a group of people who wanted to "own Mastodon". They could give the flagship instance at mastodon.social proprietary add-ons, not available to other instances. They could develop "Mastodon Pro" mobile apps that don't prioritize standards compatibility, but are compatible with the flagship instance. They could get on the standards committees so that they're difficult to implement, and not followed precisely by their clients. And while they do claim to be disinterested in VC funding, monetizing, advertising, and anything of that sort, well, money can be very persuasive.

[1] https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/e92a1cf436b99757e...

If people are bothered by that, they'll set up their own instances and fork the repo. In theory, the health of the network doesn't depend on the flagship instance.

Same goes for Diaspora and other decentralized social networks.

I think what a lot of people fail to mention is that messaging platforms have almost eliminated the need for a lot of social networking functionality. Kik, imessage, facebook message, and even text.

Why are there so few new car companies? Because Ford, GM, and Chrysler did a great job of building brands, distribution, and acquiring their smaller competitors. The World Wars and subsequent reinvestment in the impacted countries yielded some great international competition. Now Tesla and maybe Apple will enter.

If you look at almost every industry there is a ~50 year period where there is a huge amount of creative destruction and then a trend towards conglomeration. It's why we still use Alexander Graham Bell's phone services, Thomas Edison's industrial equipment, and watch movies from the Warner Brothers.

If you look at a list of the top 25 Pharma companies, you'll see that there are as many companies on the list founded before 1781 and after 1981. This will likely happen with tech too.

  There is also a trend that smartphone users are not 
  downloading as many apps today as they did in the early 
  days of mobile technology. That means any new app has a 
  significant challenge to get exposure, users, and loyalty.

This and the big social media network/chat check the postings and block mentioning of and links to new social networks, to prevent early uptake. If you try to invite more than a few of your friends to try out something new, they won't receive the message, the post won't be visible in their news stream, and so on.

Because it's hard to create niche networks that are simpler or easier or more compelling than Facebook. And if you do, Facebook will eventually buy someone who does the same thing and incorporate.

Now I notice that other tech giants have been emulating Cisco's model of constant acquisitions to adapt to rivals. For example, if Twitch ever threatened its market share, it could simply make or buy its own Twitch, considering it already has all the same resources.

I just realized how little I know about these fringe social media apps. I'm embarrassed to say that I was lost as she referred to apps like Peach and Mastadon (am I even remembering the names correctly).

not even a single mention of WeChat in the article

Reply on news.ycombinator.com