Community Takes All: The Power of Social+ | Hacker News Reader

Community Takes All: The Power of Social+

a16z.com

26 points1cvmask16 comments

It's a great article; somehow, though, it clashes with some deeper feeling I have about "social" stuff.

An example: "Music, on the other hand, is an inherently social experience.". Not for me, at least not always.

I'm 43, I try to limit how much my phone/computer/social media can interrupt my life, and music for me is mostly listening to it, by myself, in the quietness of my home office or living room. Sometimes, less often, I listen to it with my wife.

From a VC perspective, this is of course terrible. I'm a "customer" that could potentially spend much more, if only I could "connect" with friends over spotify or whatever music app I use. Heck, I don't even use Spotify much: I enjoy listening to my music on VLC (a great open source media player).

I feel "old", but I'm tired of this incessant need that businesses have to monetize me. Leave me alone.

But again, this is not against the article. They're talking about business opportunities, and unfortunately they're mostly right. Some people will make a lot of money, squeezing every last drop of humanity out of each one of us.

We can't be alone. Alone, we don't spend much.

We can't be happy. When happy, we don't spend much.

Sorry for the rant.

I feel you but I'm more in the middle of this spectrum. Sometimes, when I listen to a song I know one of my loved ones will enjoy too, I like to share it via social and then we maybe talk about it as some point.

Communication is important for my mental state and happiness. I think it's great that some tools make it easier and more asynchronous, those are good services.

The problem starts, when any such service becomes too manipulative. I think we should focus on this part in particular in open discourse and education/research as well.

> Spotify is great, but it’s primarily a single-player experience. Music, on the other hand, is an inherently social experience.

NO.

For me, music is an intensely private experience. I do not want people around me when I'm listening to music. I don't share my music tastes with others. Music is part of my me-time.

I get where the author is coming from, but music is not social all the time. I agree with another comment here, this article just clashes with me in such a way that I want to throw my laptop in anger after reading it.

It's the same thing with games right now, they just pester me to keep connecting. I'd rather prefer playing with random people and then not see them again. The "social+ money" part is so scary that I hope that I am actively going to stay as far from it as I can.

Now I've essentially realized the value of subscriptions over free things powered by ads and "social" wizardry. I'll pay for the good stuff on subscription/donations if the good stuff keeps on being what it is and not some ad-infestation/"social+" injection which keeps ruining the experience.

Pfff. The title has "Community takes all", while the article is about "Company takes all".

This article proves to me how little these so-called 'social networks' have to do with anything social.

'Social', a newspeak term to denote some kind of dehumanized business commodity. And by adding a good sprinkle of social fairy dust the magical pathway opens that allows squeezing most money from the 'community' you lured in.

I give this a social minus.

"We farm and manipulate people's interests for cash" might be a better title.

I honestly wonder if a16z and the rest of the SV elite don't understand that this is a symptom of moral and emotional dysfunction, and not proof of their competitive superiority.

I've considered a couple of music-related social projects, but I'd be more interested in making a fan site for - you know - fans and artists, and not so much of a monetisation juggernaut that will deliberately trap its users in endless twisty little passages of sticky interaction so their time can be harvested and passed to ad tech.

It's pretty much rebranded serfdom.

"the best version of every consumer product is the one that’s intrinsically social.".

Really? Really?? So, a knife, shoes, an orange, a god damn flower pot - the best versions of _every_ consumer product is the one that's social? My gym is probably "social" to some people, but I prefer it empty with just me there when I work out, that is absolutely the best version of that product for me. This guy is so ridiculously out of touch with people outside his bubble.

And why the hell "social+"? Why the "+"? i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore.jpg

I find the gaming examples confusing.

Do Minecraft and Fortnite really have a social graph at their core? Both have a social dimension arguably a lite one for Fortnite and a much strong but more diffuse one for Minecraft but neither is social first in the way Roblox is for example.

I also think this is very much oversold:

> The key isn’t the rule itself, but the implication for founders trying to compete: No category is really won until the social product is built.

It really needs qualifying that a social product needs to make sense. Does my insurance provider or healthcare provider need a social component?

I'm feeling a nascent but large shift against centralisation of 'social'.

What, in my niche, was a large blogging community, died between 2010 and 2012 but is showing sprouts of growth. The shift to centralised platforms was immediately clear after Google killed Reader and took a few years to work out. For some this meant relocating to centralised platforms for 'community', for some just quitting, for many new to the niche things seeming too much effort and on the other side of that spectrum tiresome long YouTube videos which could be tl;dr'd within a couple of paragraphs.

I do think a shift towards greater federation is back. Centralised platforms will seek to monetise whatever they can, but there's only so far a pendulum can swing and that's not to yet another centralised platform (perhaps a few, something radically different like AR, but what is mentioned in the article is already highly captured and many find this tiresome).

Perhaps this is consistent with social+ mentioned in the article. Perhaps this depends on market or sector. Social+Fitness - that's going to a gym or just having a couple of buddies to share a hobby. Social+Food, I love YouTube videos on cooking, well, 3% of them, with the rest being garbage, monetised garbage, peak monetisation - of the ones I like most chefs don't seek monetisation just sharing their love for what they do. Social+Real Estate - interesting extremes on both sides of the coin, I quite like knowing some neighbours and quite like not knowing others. Social+Money, is every Social+ is in it for the money? Social+Education, why does 'Social' really exist as a tag?

This article is basically saying: "leverage network effects to make yourself immune to competition". I get the logic, but think it is bad for society. Our system of innovation relies on continual competition. And when I look at big companies with big network effects (Visa, Facebook, Twitter, etc.), I find that I dislike all of them, wish they faced competition, wish customers had choice, and also wish employees had choice. I'm not sure what the right solution is here, because customers do derive value from social features that are executed well. But such a moat lends itself to a lack of real competition.

Hell is other people. Social is often annoying, but companies will push it to the max because they need virality. It's a conundrum, and people need to find ways to work around how to spread word-of-mouth without destroying all privacy and individuality.

There are a lot of jaded people here who refuse to accept the way the world is working. The reason these organizations exist is because people are receiving sufficient value at their cost. If you don't see the value in their services, then they are not for you. Since they exist, however, indicates that they are for others unlike you. These organizations will not exist otherwise.

I couldn't fathom spending money on skins for weapons and armor inside a video game. Yet, it's one of the primary ways that the producer of Fortnight mints a fortune. It seems insane to me, but that's because I don't spend my life in an online world socializing and having fun. If I did, paying for customization may be worthwhile. Also, customers aren't rubes. They rebelled against Electronic Arts not too long ago for trying to milk the Star Wars Battlefront game. EA may have learned its limits from that.

What does it even mean for communities to be pumped for as much money as possible? Does it mean valuable products and services are being sold? People don't pay for what they can't afford. Companies aren't shaking down anyone. Customers decide for themselves what is worth the cost. Give people what they want or need.

Spend 30 seconds and comment with your downvote.

> There are a lot of jaded people here who refuse to accept the way the world is working.

This is HN. Quite a few people here know how the world is working in favor of these things because there's a good chance they built it themselves, or at least know a few people who have.

Of course these products are not for me, and I very much understand that there's a market for the things they sell. Music might be a private matter for me, but it is definitely part of the social lives of a lot of people I know; they derive a lot of enjoyment from comparing different bands/partying/recommending new things. But looking at what the past years (and even before that!) have taught us about the so-called social aspects of technology, it is very difficult for me to believe that communities aren't being pumped for money. Every facebook action (for pure profit motives with no heed to possible harmful consequences of their actions), political agendas festering on social networks, and attempts and successes of being able to manipulate minds of people using such platforms has definitely left a sour taste in the minds of most tech people.

What angered me specifically was the tone-deafness of the article; it didn't mention any of these issues at all, but talked about the topic in a way that it was the best, unbeatable thing ever, and any company not following the mandate would be doomed to irrelevance, which is completely false as quite a few replies here have pointed out.

You make it sound like there is no ethical component to business decisions and that all customers will act rationally in their own best interest. I don't think either is true and that people take part in economic transactions isn't a sufficient defense of those transactions as an intrinsic good.

Of course ethics plays a role in business. I don't agree with the rational actor argument either. I understand the exploits and know how they're applied. The truth is that most of these organizations aren't exploiting customers. There's a voluntary exchange in good faith. You make it sound as if integrating a community with a product is unethical. It isn't.

I'm just disagreeing with the argument you put forth (and stating why) not saying that integrating a social component to a product is unethical. Please don't put words I clearly didn't say into my mouth.

> The truth is that most of these organizations aren't exploiting customers. There's a voluntary exchange in good faith.

That's your own very nebulous value judgement rather than a 'truth'.

If companies do act unethically (sometimes through ignorance) and people do not always act in their best interests it pays to be somewhat skeptical of the new whizz-bang idea for extracting more money for similar products from people. Particularly if you are working on them!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com