
Why There Are No New Social Networks - artsandsci
https://theringer.com/social-media-invention-facebook-twitter-snapchat-tech-e40178df183
======
jbergstroem
Twitch? Github? Lots of "social" going on over there, last I checked. I feel
the definition of social is just getting laundered in the article to fit the
authors size.

The beauty of the Internet has always been the way sub-nieches grows into
their own communities once their parents become too diverse. For me, Facebook
always felt like the last monolith that "tried to do it all". It now acquires
sub-niches instead.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Right. Everything is social now. The article's argument seems to be a no true
scotsman fallacy. Of course there aren't any new facebook clones right now,
why create one? But we've seen instagram grow like crazy (which is why FB
bought them) and snapchat and twitch and kik and medium and whatsapp and
slack, and so on. Things don't have to look exactly like what the previous
generation looked like to fill the same ecological niche. Just look at
smartphones and tablets (once derided as toys) as people's daily communication
devices versus laptops, desktops, and telephones. Times change.

Don't ask "where are the things that look exactly like X social media platform
but with different details" (e.g. facebook versus google+) instead ask "where
are people spending their social time these days, is it in the same places
it's always been or are new places becoming more popular?".

Also, to add on to your point about "sub-niches" one thing that facebook lacks
is character, even though one of the primary organizing principles for social
spaces is unique character and shared interest (look at HN, for example).
People organize socially _around_ interests. One easy way to take on a
monolith like facebook is to take a stand, carve out a niche, have a unique
character and build a sub-niche there.

------
alkonaut
Mastodon was 30k last week, over 200k now. At that rate it looks like it might
reach critical mass.

~~~
ikeyany
Which social media giant do you suppose will buy/copy* them before they become
too much of a threat?

* - edit

~~~
mhuffman
This is the correct answer to OP's article title. Any social network that
looks viable will be killed in its cradle* or integrated into one of the big
boys.

* of course I mean acquired

~~~
michaelchisari
This is an open source, decentralized network. It has many existential
threats, but being bought out isn't one of them.

------
snewk
how can a piece like this not even mention reddit?

admittedly, its not as popular as facebook, but it seems to be a 'newer'
paradigm of social network than the big ones.

more unmentioned platforms include tinder and other purpose-driven social
networks like quora and meetup.

~~~
gleglegle
Reddit started 2005. How is it new?

~~~
glibgil
It should be mentioned in these types of lists. It's not fair to say
"Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and Snapchat... and the rest".
Reddit is huge

~~~
eduren
Not just in DAU either. Mind-share wise, it has a huge influence on the wider
web and is increasingly _the_ platform for content stealers (the 9gags,
buzzfeeds, and facebook pages).

~~~
zyx321
9gag has been caught time and time again using bots to just rip off whatever
was trending on reddit's r/all feed (most obvious when they copy
SubRedditSimulator, which is just a Markov Chain recombination of other
trending posts).

This has been going on for years.

------
tungwaiyip
The article is just not doing a very good job of identifying social networks.
Whatsapp is BIG. There are also many non-US base social network, like WeChat,
that was not on their radar screen.

EDIT: I should explain myself more.

For my mom, her social network is a paper address book and her phone. That's
the technology she use to get in touch with her friends.

Whatapps has the necessary technology and feature. What makes it a "social
network" in this context is the adoption. If a large number of your peers are
using it as a main way to get in touch, it is their "social network". You may
not think of it as such because it looks different than Facebook. But this
will become more apparent if you are aware how much penetration it has in some
communities.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Whatsapp isn't a social network, is it?

~~~
tungwaiyip
It is very much a social network. That's the place I go to for group chat,
catching up with friends and share irrelevant stuff. It wasn't branded as
such. But it is entirely social.

------
lukasb
I know Mastodon is only for super-nerds right now and probably won't become
big. But if it does it'll be SUPER interesting, since it can't be bought.
Sorta misleading to mention Mastodon without noting that.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
> since it can't be bought

This is not precisely true. Read some of this description in the FAQ [1]:

> What is mastodon.social? _The "flagship" instance of Mastodon, aka the
> server I run myself with the latest code. It's not supposed to be the only
> instance in the end._

> What else is part of the federated network? _Let 's call it the "fediverse".
> It has existed for a longer while, populated by GNU social servers,
> Friendica, Hubzilla, Diaspora etc. Not every one of those servers is fully
> compatible with every other. Mastodon strives to be fully standards-
> compliant and compatibility with GNU social is higher in priority than the
> others._

> I tried logging into a GNU social client app with Mastodon and it didn't
> work, why? _While Mastodon is compatible with GNU social in terms of server
> to server communication, the client to server API (aka how you access
> Mastodon) is different. Therefore, client apps that were made for
> specifically GNU social will not work with Mastodon. The reason for this is
> half technical, half ideological._

While I applaud the ideals espoused in these paragraphs - and completely
understand the technical reasons why it's not compatible with some older
protocols, why there is a flagship instance, and so on - imagine for a minute
that the current developers were supplemented/replaced with a group of people
who wanted to "own Mastodon". They could give the flagship instance at
mastodon.social proprietary add-ons, not available to other instances. They
could develop "Mastodon Pro" mobile apps that don't prioritize standards
compatibility, but are compatible with the flagship instance. They could get
on the standards committees so that they're difficult to implement, and not
followed precisely by their clients. And while they do claim to be
disinterested in VC funding, monetizing, advertising, and anything of that
sort, well, money can be very persuasive.

[1]
[https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/e92a1cf436b99757e...](https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/e92a1cf436b99757e82d0234ca54b6c41b7ddb16/docs/Using-
Mastodon/FAQ.md)

~~~
khedoros1
If people are bothered by that, they'll set up their own instances and fork
the repo. In theory, the health of the network doesn't depend on the flagship
instance.

------
angryasian
I think what a lot of people fail to mention is that messaging platforms have
almost eliminated the need for a lot of social networking functionality. Kik,
imessage, facebook message, and even text.

------
replicatorblog
Why are there so few new car companies? Because Ford, GM, and Chrysler did a
great job of building brands, distribution, and acquiring their smaller
competitors. The World Wars and subsequent reinvestment in the impacted
countries yielded some great international competition. Now Tesla and maybe
Apple will enter.

If you look at almost every industry there is a ~50 year period where there is
a huge amount of creative destruction and then a trend towards conglomeration.
It's why we still use Alexander Graham Bell's phone services, Thomas Edison's
industrial equipment, and watch movies from the Warner Brothers.

If you look at a list of the top 25 Pharma companies, you'll see that there
are as many companies on the list founded before 1781 and after 1981. This
will likely happen with tech too.

------
frik

      There is also a trend that smartphone users are not 
      downloading as many apps today as they did in the early 
      days of mobile technology. That means any new app has a 
      significant challenge to get exposure, users, and loyalty.
    

This and the big social media network/chat check the postings and block
mentioning of and links to new social networks, to prevent early uptake. If
you try to invite more than a few of your friends to try out something new,
they won't receive the message, the post won't be visible in their news
stream, and so on.

------
peterwwillis
Because it's hard to create niche networks that are simpler or easier or more
compelling than Facebook. And if you do, Facebook will eventually buy someone
who does the same thing and incorporate.

Now I notice that other tech giants have been emulating Cisco's model of
constant acquisitions to adapt to rivals. For example, if Twitch ever
threatened its market share, it could simply make or buy its own Twitch,
considering it already has all the same resources.

------
the_d00d
I just realized how little I know about these fringe social media apps. I'm
embarrassed to say that I was lost as she referred to apps like Peach and
Mastadon (am I even remembering the names correctly).

------
metaphorm
not even a single mention of WeChat in the article

