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.
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
@LogicalDash @ajroach42 @hhardy01 Yeah, there's a certain kind of tech hubris that thinks that not wanting to learn how to set up a blog is a failing in other people. I'd rather try to take into account what is good about blogs, and what was good about the golden age of Usenet, when designing something for non-technical users.
@gcupc @hhardy01 @ajroach42 @LogicalDash There’s also an entire generation of tech missing from this argument. The people who did those things could afford the high technical and monetary costs of doing them, mostly by paying University tuition. That internet was a walled garden, and it was Early ISP’s that broke the walls down and, in the process of monetizing the internet, democratized it.
Facebook replaced AOL (and MySpace).
@jay @LogicalDash @ajroach42 @hhardy01 @gcupc i feel like it both replaced those things AND brought in an audience that neither of those things could. there are people in my life who use facebook to the exclusion of all other parts of the internet, who never used a computer regularly before that. part of it is tablets/phones - they come with facebook installed. it's less intimidating
@gcupc I agree with this, and that's why I try not to criticize people for the networks and tools they use.
I'll critizie those networks and tools, but that's a different thing, you know?
And so much of my favorite indieweb adjacent stuff is still centralized (although it's open web, it's not siloed.)
Archive.org + neocities ftw.
@gcupc @hamishcampbell @jay @LogicalDash @ajroach42 @hhardy01 tbh i'd argue blog/website building doesn't actually meet the same need, even if it was easy enough for everyone to do. fb is a communication tool that is relatively easy to use and gives an illusion of privacy and intimacy ("only my friends/family will see this!"). imo the people who really got into the old indie web were oddballs looking for connection we couldn't find irl - so we wanted to broadcast
@hhardy01 @ajroach42 @LogicalDash @jay @hamishcampbell @gcupc some people use fb for that, but i think many more see it as the equivalent of a family email list or a christmas letter. i think that role does deserve to be filled by an easy-to-use tool, just maybe not one that harvests all your data to sell to advertising firms. and maybe not one that assumes all people in your life should see the same version of you
Well in my case I'd been doing student and community radio for about 12 years when I started on the ARPAnet so I wasn't without a broadcast channel it was rather that I was happy to have another medium.
But its true that when I started my own website in 1995 that took a lot of impetus from radio.
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.
@hhardy01 those two sentences contradict one another
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.
@hhardy01 The fact that Facebook is the only part of the internet a lot of people use means that it is providing something to them, that they will still need if Facebook goes under
The only way it makes sense to not care about a Facebook replacement, but still want it to die, is if you're OK with those people not getting what they need out of the internet
The internet is a voluntary association of Autonomous Systems. It isn't Facebook.
It's kind of like worrying that if Walmart fails, then people won't be able to buy clothes or appliances or food. Of course they will. If Facecrook is filling a need and it falters, other competing services will pick up the slack.
If you love Facecrook so much why are you here?
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!
A social network for the 19A0s.