Really, asking "what should replace Facebook" is putting things the wrong way around.
A more interesting way to ask the question is, "what did Facebook replace."
People used to build their own websites. People used to have blogs. People used USENET which was truly distributed and un-censorable.
Facebook and Google took the open internet and open standards and monetized and made everything crappy. Enough of that. Nothing should replace Facebook, it's done, stick a fork in it.
@hhardy01 Most of the people who now use Facebook to communicate did not, in fact, do those things. They still need to communicate online. They need a Facebook replacement.
If you really believe that everyone who currently uses Facebook should get technical enough to start their own blog ... that's what you're advocating as a Facebook replacement. You are now in competition with the other efforts to offer a replacement for it, and should conduct yourself accordingly
Facebook is that for a lot of people now. That is worth replicating and perpetuating. We should find a way to do so without the exploitative business practices. We should nonetheless learn from the things Facebook has done for people
@hhardy01 Because I don't like Facebook
I also think your rhetoric is harmful to the cause of replacing it
I don't care about 'replacing Facebook.'
I just look forward to facebook joining AOL, geocities, friendster, and myspace on the ashheap of the net.
I was here before Facebook. Before the web. Before any commercial use of the net was allowed. At all.
I feel like you think Facebooks is the Internet essentially and like it is a big deal.
I see Facebook as a crappy website laden with spyware and adware.
I hope it dwindles down to almost nothing and becomes irrelevant as myspace, friendster, geocities, AOL have.
If you take Facebook as a model and try to 'replace' it, that's the wrong paradigm.
I don't exactly know why FB became so popular.
For me it was the world wide reach, illusion of private space, and pointy clicky illusion of ease of use. Even though no real control and everything obfuscated.
It is hard for me as I'm leaving now because I have 2000 peeps and so many artists, musicians, writers, intellectuals, thinkers, internet OGs, models, rebels cool people. But if they are real they will come to me here if not let them go.
I used to have an account with a local Free-Net, which was sponsored by the city and had telnet and dial-up access. It did allow access to external WWW (Lynx browser only), gopher, and ftp, in addition to typical local BBS stuff, but no FidoNet.
@salixlucida @ajroach42 @hhardy01 @Hascobe @LogicalDash Excellent point (that not all were on FidoNet). But in those days the technical barrier was higher, too. You had to buy a modem, know who to hook it up, how to use the dialer. The “magic” of AOL in those days was all UX - they lowered the barriers to access. Similarly Facebook with its UX (including on mobile) lowered the barriers for social sharing and connecting.
@hhardy01 @Hascobe @ajroach42 @LogicalDash There were all those things, but they were small. Facebook works for all those people that don't get "the internet" in all its complexity and variety. Same as Apple's iDevices work for many that couldn't get a grip on all that computer stuff before.
Both are massive enablers, but they come at a hidden cost. Only those users that are being enabled are the least well equipped to understand the costs, because they don't understand the ecosystem.
@galaxis @hhardy01 @Hascobe @ajroach42 @LogicalDash Exactly. Facebook made the user experience super simple for people overwhelmed by all the other choices... and the technical complexity of some of the choices. “Just come here and you can communicate with your friends and family, you can meet new people, join discussions, etc” It offers a simplicity for people who don’t care about the tech- they just want to communicate and connect!
@LogicalDash Unfortunately, agree. Here in our bubble, we tend to completely ignore how many people just got in touch with technology via Facebook, WhatsApp, Google - a lot of them people who were coming from dumbphones and texting before, a lot of them (at least in my environment) people who never ever owned a "computer" and never will (asides a smartphone). They don't know or care about "technology" or "the web". They care about the people they connect with.
@hhardy01 Let's not be reductive.
Facebook works, regardless of whether you have tech abilities or disposable income.
Facebook centralises and logs communication in a way that IRC never did.
Facebook is accessible and convenient af. Any competitor has to match that.
@Hascobe @hhardy01 Exactly this. I have a blog. I'm never going to convince everyone I interact with on Facebook to join me there. I'm never gonna convince my mum that she needs to make an account to talk to me there and then get her childhood friends she's reconnected with to contact her there, too. Why would they?
@Agentfoo @Hascobe @hhardy01 This is a big part of the challenge. Facebook has become the place where people have reconnected. Now they are there and have built a mesh of connections. It is hard to move from that well-connected space to a place where all those connections have to be rebuilt. There is a “switching cost” - and most people don’t (yet) feel the need/urgency to switch. It’s a great bit of work.
IRC has always used a server. And there's been bots such as eggdrop since forever. Try freenode and irissi client now.
@hhardy01 I'm sure it's doable in some form. The problem is, it's not accessible enough for someone to go from ignorant of the technology to fully integrated, without substantive research. If I say 'join Facebook' to people, they can can find Facebook, and from there the onboarding process takes them through to completion. (Even then, the grossly tech illiterate can struggle.)
That's the barrier we need to surpass.
the future of social networking
@hhardy01 I think it's only the wrong question because the answer, broadly at least, is kind of obvious: pretty much anything that isn't centrally owned or operated.
(There are multiple reasons why we wouldn't want to go back to what came before.)
The real questions are:
1. What should it be about? (What's the concept?)
2. How can we get people to use it?
I have some fairly detailed ideas about #1.
@hhardy01 One thing Facebook and other social media did, though, is that they made it accessible to people who don't know how to make their own websites and who aren't tech-savvy enough to learn. I don't like facebook, but I don't want having a presence on the internet to have the massive barrier to entry that it had before social media was a thing.
@hhardy01 I think this is a bit optimistic though - while people did do those things, far more people were able to communicate with people because Facebook made it easy.... while also siphonining their data, slinging ads, and violating their privacy.
The things and protocls you mention had a lot of freedom, but fraught with problems. Usenet became a hive of spam. Most people couldn't make a web page.
The problem is how can we make it easy *and* liberating?
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit