Google takes another run at social networking with Shoelace | Hacker News Reader

Google takes another run at social networking with Shoelace

theverge.com

12 pointsmunchor29 comments

I actually like the idea of this type of hyper-local "social networking", but I think my fear of it being run by Google is valid. I would love to see another company do well at this, but I'll be skipping over Google's iteration.

I'm not sure how good Nextdoor actually is, but it's another "hyper-local" social network.

I’ve only heard that it is only used by people in the same neighborhood to talk about people “who don’t belong there”.

It's actually quite useful for "hey, did you see my dog?" or "do you know what happened at ... last night?" things. But being a social network (so basically, evil by definition) you do get a worrying amount of "these people look weird here" , political fights and other BS that comes weith the social network territory.

Why join a “hyper local network” when everyone is already on Facebook and you can just make a Facebook Group?

Because you prefer Google's spying over FB apparently.

'everyone'. Ive never used FB in my life, and never will. More people are ditching ZuckNet every day because it is so awful. Good to have alternatives.

Well despite your anecdote, the actual numbers disagree with you. A few geeks staying off Facebook is about as relevant as the “I don’t own a TV” crowd.

I just don't understand why on earth would anyone defend this platform. Yeah I don't own a TV either. Enjoy your zuckbucks!

They aren't defending it, they say people are using it. Which is a very different thing from Facebook being good.

If you've owned one for decades that might make sense, but why would I buy a device that shows me what various media companies choose to provide at each given hour instead of watching what I want, when I want?

We're decades into the web.

So instead of watching video on demand on a TV - since almost all TVs sold these days are “smart TVs”, it’s a different experience watching it on a phone or computer?

Not sure... I haven't actually owned a TV since 2002! My roommates several years ago had one with cable, and it really was necessary to flip channels to find something interesting and there were still ads. I just didn't have patience for it.

I generally get what I want from Amazon or a local equivalent, either streaming or just buy the seasons of shows I want (e.g. Halt and Catch Fire) and watch it on my 27" computer monitor. Sometimes, if there's a group, I'll use a projector.

So you own a 27 inch monitor connected to a computer that allows you to watch video over the internet and that’s somehow different than the typical household these days that owns a television connected to a Roku device (a specialized computer) or that has built in processor that allows them to watch video on demand over the internet?

I'm not the one to ask. I'm not familiar with Roku devices and haven't owned a TV since 2002.

I'm sorry if you don't like this, but it's the truth.

People who avoid Facebook products as a rule are unlikely to ever consider google products.

I don't think you can make this claim without understand the motivation or threat models of the billions of non-facebook users. I use Google services, I do not use Facebook services. Am I the exception to the rule? How many are in this exception group?

How large do you really think the number of non Facebook adults are in the US that would be Google users? The number of people in the US on Facebook and the number of adults in the US is public knowledge. Just step out of the geek bubble.

I'm not following your logic? Are you saying I should join FB because everyone else is? Everything in life is ephemeral. Trends and apps come and go. This too shall pass.

My goal is to get people to question the relevance, time drain and impact to humanity that FB imposes on the world. I believe that if people did the calculus they would see the horror for what it is.

No. I’m saying a social network is worthless that people aren’t on. Whether you are on it are not doesn’t matter. Nor does a few anecdotes on HN when the numbers show something different.

> Shoelace is currently in an invite-only testing phase

So Google is using their proven method of building a social network. It's proven to not work, mind you, but it's proven.

Are there any reasons why Google might be doing this apart from broken incentive structures?

How is it proven not to work just because one or more times it hasn't worked, especially with an example as notable as Facebook on the other side?

There are pros and cons for sure, and perhaps you're right that on balance the cons outweigh the pros, but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all.

AFAIK Facebook didn't restrict its user base by giving out limited invites but by only admitting certain groups (initially, Harvard students). That's a very different thing.

In any case, the world was quite different back then. Facebook didn't have take on Facebook. Still, "proven" is too strong a statement, this isn't mathematics.

> but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all.

Not everything is a statement of an opinion. Sometimes a question mark indicates a question.

You're right about how Facebook did it, but I'd describe it as a pedantically different thing, not a very different thing. It's just a different method of artificially restricting who can sign up.

And to your edit: "It's proven to not work" seems like a statement, and it's the statement I was responding to. Had you simply asked the question about whether it's a good idea I wouldn't have written my response.

"Proven" was hyperbole, sorry. I think the difference is significant: Facebook was a place for Harvard students to communicate with other Harvard students. That is useful. Google+ was a place where you could communicate with a random subset of your friends and acquaintances. That's mostly useless. For one-to-one communication it's okay, but a social network is also about group discussions and broadcasting.

Yeah, Gmail was such a flop. Orkut also comes to mind, although they botched/killed that for different reasons.

Gmail didn’t depend on network effects beyond being able to send email to anyone.

Gmail isn't a social network.

> “hand-picked” local activities

I wonder what the team's process is for hand picking local activities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com