Hacker News Reader

> true global communication platform would look nothing like the social media we have today.

Perhaps it would look like that brief golden age when everyone had a self hosted blog and we subscribed to each other with RSS readers.

Not everyone chose to do that then. and I don't think of it as a golden age.

I wouldn't know how many deliberately chose not to self-promote in that way, but it is probably far more than those who chose to blog.

I think system architecture is part of the present problem, but it is not at the root. Even during your so-called Golden Age the deeper issue was already manifest, though not yet scaled.

These are some very good points. For me the biggest problem with existing social networks is how difficult it is to get to know new people through the applications. Despite us spending more time online than being present on the physical world (this is probably also a problem, but one for another time), we get remarkably little real social interaction out of these hours spent.

Good news is that the seeds of better social do exist. I'm trying to set up one of them, http://www.reason.so/ which will match people with similar interests into small (3-10 people) group chats with the intention of creating small communities where it's easy to discuss things you find interesting semi-privately (i.e. somewhere between a public Twitter thread and a private group message). By keeping the chats small you also get rid of clickbait, astroturfers and "thought leaders" who only want to build an audience instead of actually interacting with other people.

The biggest problem with setting up a social network like Reason is probably monetarisation. People just aren't ready to pay for social media when Facebook, Clubhouse and co are free.

Monitorisation isn't necessarily going to be that big an issue. If you have a common theme for the group, you can serve ads around that theme and you don't need to track anything.

In addition to that, meetup.com makes its money by charging people who want to setup a group.

That looks interesting. How do you plan on moderating the platform?

Wow, well said. We are trying to build something like this with Circles. https://github.com/KombuchaPrivacy/circles-ios

It’s E2E encrypted, so the server can’t datamine your posts or meddle with your timeline. Built on Matrix underneath, so building federated communities will be straightforward.

Let me know if you’d like to try it out.

It looks interesting, I lack an Apple device though so I'll have to pass for now.

It seems to have that same problem many alternatives have though.

My friends and family aren't on there and there seems to be a lack of a way to at least make some new friends on there.

You hit right on the two biggest challenges.

First, I’m trying really hard to get an Android version ready by the end of the year.

Second, we’re going to be offering some group deals and discounts, so one person can pay to get their whole family / group / crew on the network for an introductory period.

No doubt it will be slow going for a while.

But I think (hope?) that once people get a taste of an easy way to keep in touch, without the platform itself working against you, then it will start to spread organically and pick up steam.

A first step should be renaming "social media" to "personal feed".

I think the very name "social media" is catching people off guard. It implies something social, which for most people is good and aspirational.

I think people already could do what you say. You could be on Facebook and only have family and a small group of close friends that you share with. People don't want that. They want to get as many likes as possible. They want to argue with people. They want to be voyeurs. Even something just as simple as group chat is available today. Why aren't people simply creating different group chats (or using GroupMe, e.g.) as their only sharing communication? They can control every level of privacy. I don't think people want that. They want max likes and they don't want to put any effort into it. They don't really care about privacy. If they did, they wouldn't share every meal and activity they do online.

Social media is as successful as it is precisely because it works so well as a communications paradigm. No popular social media platform is difficult to communicate on, they draw in so many users because they're easy to use.

My mother who can barely use Windows knows how to chat with me on Facebook. People use social media to communicate between friends, family, coworkers etc all the time. That's how all of that monetizable data gets generated.

Yes, the purpose of social media is to profit from user-generated content and data, but it still works as intended for 99% of people.

That's not quite what I meant. Sure you can chat directly fairly easy through Facebook, but communicate is more than just that. Keeping to the Facebook example, much of the 'communication' is done through user or group wall posts.

It is notoriously difficult to browse through, responses are sorted in non-intuitive ways, sometimes responses are hidden for no apparent reason, yet people regularly use it to communicate.

When people post status updates or pictures or whatever, they're trying to communicate, how many times have you gotten status or upload notifications from people you haven't talked to in years, but it never showed you your best friend's new baby pictures or something like that?

Twitter, It's designed around a character limit that strictly discourages longform communication. Yet, you get people trying to write blog posts using it, much to the chagrin of many HN commenters, and generally, the quality of most communication suffers greatly on twitter because of the inherent design.

>it still works as intended for 99% of people.

I would argue that it feels like it works, for 99% of people. I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.

> I would argue that it feels like it works

But that's effectively the same thing if you can't get users to change networks/platforms, eh?

> I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.

Sure. It's easy-bake oven internet for non-geeks. But they don't care. The cupcakes taste fine (to them.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy-Bake_Oven

Social media was never intended to be a replacement for meaningful social interaction or bonding, any more than telephones or letter writing, or the generation of forums and personal websites it more or less replaced.

>"Founded in 2004, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them."

Facebook's mission statement.

I dunno, replacing it was exactly the vibe I got from the Facebook people when my employers sent us to a Facebook dev conference in London.

Whole thing creeped me out.

> they draw in so many users because they're easy to use

They're easy to use because the major social media platforms know that reducing friction to use draws people in and keeps them there, while the platform serves their attention up to advertisers. There's even ways that they make it harder to stop using them than to just keep scrolling/refreshing. Dark Patterns abound.

People on social media are generally not communicating with each other, at least not in a meaningful sense. Social media users are sharing things that other people have created to draw attention, and whatever gets the most attention and shares, aka "engagement" sells the most ads, and makes the most money.