
Searching for a Future Beyond Facebook - kawera
https://longreads.com/2018/05/01/searching-for-a-future-beyond-facebook/
======
arca_vorago
Look, the truth of the matter is we opened the floodgates to computing for the
masses too quickly without the proper protections and training. So up until
about ~2000 it was mostly just the geeks using computers. Suddenly though,
with the nice gui of Windows and Mac, the kind of users who used their cd tray
as a coffee cup holder exponentially multiplied... and thus
/r/talesfromtechsupport was born.

They never learned to control and own their systems.

Then those users start buying other computers, with software they didn't have
the option to control, in the form of smartphones.

Now there are huge swaths of users who are so used to being stuck in a user
prison they don't own or control that they think it's normal!

It's not. Join the GNU+Linux revolution today!

So the problem with fb and twitter etc, is that they took what would have been
a great model (individual websites) and tried to force everyone on their
platform and then find various ways to lock them there... and now with all the
backlash there is a growing awakening of computing freedom, but the problem is
they keep thinking of blockchain or meshnet style decentraliztion to fix the
problem, when the real problem is one of ownership.

So in my opinion we need a good copyleft foss federation tech and people to
own their own data. The internet isn't fully decentralized... it's more of a
heirarchical starspoke topology, and it's high time SV and the rest wakeup
from buzzword bingo of decentralization. (If I hear one more story about how
we don't need servers cause we're going to _the cloud_ I'm going to explode,
for example).

This is also why I think something like the freedombox is probably the closest
thing to what the future lookes like.

~~~
the_greyd
You haven't answered the fundamental question: How are they going to make
money? The internet can be decentralized, and everything can be FOSS, but how
is that going to make money for companies? If it isn't making money why will
anyone bother changing their existing model? Unless we change the rules, we
are not going to get different results. I wish there was a sustainable way to
fund new tech by people. The growth we see in tech right now is manifested
with this massive surveillance capitalism. Think about all the shiny tech/open
source libraries coming out of google and facebook, now advertisements are
what funds that. The line "All great civilizations were built on back of
slaves" comes to mind. Our data and privacy is what we lose, for us to achieve
this massive technological prowess.

~~~
rokhayakebe
_I wish there was a sustainable way to fund new tech by people._

We pay for our phone, electricity, connection service. We even pay for games.
Yet we don't want to pay for the tools that help us manage our social
networks.

Or perhaps noone has dared to launch a paid social network and stick to it
long enough.

------
overcast
Until the day the general population actually pays for online services(this
will never happen), Facebook like enterprises will exist. I know you'll
respond and tell me that you'd pay, but the vast majority of people will not,
and that's why any type of paid social network will fail. They require mass
adoption to be successful.

~~~
ufo
Im not sure facebook would do the right thing if users paid for it. I suspect
they would just keep on doing their data harvesting to increment their
revenue.

For example, in the early days of cable TV it had very few ads but nowadays it
is infested with ads and product placement.

I feel the only way out here is legislation.

~~~
overcast
Honestly, I don't believe any company would "do the right thing". Companies
exist to make money, as much as they possibly can. They might start off with
good intentions, but inevitably, they will start looking for alternate ways of
revenue. Sure, maybe some not for profit, good intention, fairly tale business
might pop up. But they will in NO way get to billions of users, and will be
dwarfed by the free alternatives.

~~~
ASalazarMX
> Honestly, I don't believe any company would "do the right thing". Companies
> exist to make money, as much as they possibly can.

Don't forget that companies are a tool for people to make money, It they lack
ethics it's because a) the people who run them lack ethics, or b) they are too
removed from the operation it only means a quarterly stream of money.

I think granting legal personhood to conceptual entities was one of the
biggest mistakes of capitalism.

~~~
ethbro
Sometimes it simply means it's the globally winning move. Two hypotheticals.

1) Users pay Facebook a monthly fee to use the platform (enough to fund it
profitably, so say $25/month)

2) Users pay Facebook a monthly fee AND Facebook markets their information (if
not through direct advertising, then other methods)

If the fee is the same, and there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't be,
Facebook is under a fiduciary duty to always choose (2).

The only path to not monetizing users is Apple-esque "Make so much money you
can forgo profit in service to branding that the market forgives you". And I
don't see Facebook ever commanding those kinds of margins.

Absolutely agreed on corporate personhood. Teddy Roosevelt's biography and the
1850 - 1920 period is instructive, as you see what it really takes to claw
back control from corporations (aka "combinations" at the time).

------
realpeopleio
"we must devise new business models and structural incentives that aren’t
rooted in manipulation and coercion...In the short-term, that might be
achieved by turning to basic subscription services, by paying for the things
we use."

That's why we made RealPeople.io
([https://realpeople.io](https://realpeople.io)) have no ads at all. Users pay
to use, and there's no AI, no sharing your data. Rather than trying to just
convince users to take our word for it, we just built it into our business
model. Our financial incentives align with keeping user data private. And
since we don't get paid based on how many pages the user views or how long the
user is on the system, there's no financial incentive to getting the user
addicted.

~~~
jasode
_> And since we don't get paid based on how many pages the user views or how
long the user is on the system, there's no financial incentive to getting the
user addicted._

Arguably, most of Facebook's addiction is the _existence_ of virtually _all
their friends_ on the network.

Your $9/year cost is a lavish amount of money that exceeds the measly $1/year
that 70% don't want to pay.[1] Why don't people want to pay 8 cents a month to
avoid ads?!? That's a good question! Whatever the answer is, it affects how an
alternative social network can grow and/or financially sustain itself.

If most of the people aren't in a $9/year network, then yes, it won't be
addictive. The Google+ social network has targeted ads and yet it's not
addictive -- because it's missing the network effect of having "everybody" on
it.

Have you considered realistic human incentives in your economic model?

[1] [https://www.tune.com/blog/mobile-ads-70-of-smartphone-
owners...](https://www.tune.com/blog/mobile-ads-70-of-smartphone-owners-wont-
pay-even-1-to-avoid-ads/)

~~~
lhorie
One could argue that LinkedIn has everybody on it (at least insofar as you are
a working white collar adult), but it's not addictive either.

~~~
jasode
Many analysts don't classify Linkedin as "social" network. The unit of
activity on that website is very "transactional". The transactions are _"
finding a new job"_. Transactions are common activities for _people that don
't already know each other_ \-- which is a common scenario for job seekers and
job hirers. They "connect" because of a _curriculum vitae_ and not because of
a previous In-Real-Life meeting in a school classroom or a family
relationship. (Yes, there are "endorsements" which have some aspects of
"social".)

Real _social_ networks like Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat are not as
transactional. The unit of activity is "ambient awareness" among _people who
already know each other_. There is a human desire to _" know what's going on
with my friends"_ and also its counterpart of _" let my friends know whats
going on with me"_. This includes use cases such as grandmothers seeing a new
posting of photos of the grandkids, and people sending trivialities such as
photos of what they're eating for breakfast to their friends, and groups
coordinating a shared calendar for a weekend party.

So yes, if you made an "alternative Facebook" that disallowed all the fun
things that make it a "social" network such as photos, party events, etc, you
will -- by definition -- create a "boring" network that nobody is addicted to.
However, that type of limited network doesn't seem to be the "Facebook
alternative" most people are seriously discussing.

~~~
lhorie
I think the social aspect isn't necessary for addictiveness. I can coordinate
an event or meeting via WhatsApp or SMS or even snail mail (weddings), but
there's nothing intrinsically addictive about that. To put it in your words,
these are "transactional" activities towards an offline goal.

The way I think of it is that there are two mechanisms that make Facebook
addictive:

The first is voyeurism. We can see similar impulsive behavior when we think
things like tabloids and gossip, as well as the psychology of clickbait (e.g.
"you won't believe what this local mom did"). People are just naturally
curious to know what's going on with other people.

The second mechanism is validation. We can see similar dynamics with how
youtubers track "success" and "progress". Twitter presences basically operate
on a similar principle. Instagram is another example where people feel
compelled to share somewhat artificialized "slice-of-life" photography to
audiences that may or may not be their circle of friends. There's karma in
HN/reddit/stack overflow, etc and stars in github. In Facebook, it's "likes".
The common factor is that people like seeing a little number go up in response
to some activity and are compelled to re-engage in said activity due to the
positive reinforcement.

So I'd argue that an alternative to Facebook already exists - in the form of
Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, clickbait farms, messaging apps, etc. The only
stronghold I see left for Facebook is that it's the default place to broadcast
random things that don't fit into any other platform (i.e. what's going on
with who), and even that is eroding with the whole aunt-and-college-buddies-
in-the-same-network-awkwardness thing. The only other thing going for Facebook
is that it's pretty much the only platform that enables chain mail sort of
stuff (you know, that uncle that is always posting political articles or
alternative medicine things, or inspirational quotes or whatever) since it
sorta automatically gives people an audience to broadcast to (for the
validation aspect).

~~~
jasode
_> To put it in your words, these are "transactional" activities towards an
offline goal._

I wasn't using "transactional" in a that loose of a sense so it can apply to
nearly everthing. I was thinking of "transactions" in a very money-oriented
way. To start a "job search" is to interact with others where "money" defines
the relationship ("I want to be paid $$.") That's what LinkedIn is built on.
(Yes, money is a crass subject but that's ok because we're on LinkedIn!) Even
if an employee and employer become "real friends" later instead of just
economic actors in a business transaction, the undertone of the website is
still a financial transaction. By its nature, it's going to be a "boring"
website.

Facebook ... or _" TheFacebook.com"_ in 2004... was built on students who knew
each other. Before it had ads or corporate media inserted into the newsfeed,
students were entranced by the "voyeurism" and likewise, the need to express
themselves which then feeds the voyeurism of others. The undertone was non-
business and non-money things like "mating rituals" and later expanded to
friends & family updates like "photos".

Twitter and Reddit don't replace that. Reddit uses handles instead of _real
names_. Both Twitter & Reddit have their own set of addictive attractions.
Messaging apps like WhatsApp don't have a "news feed" which many Facebook
users like. Instagram and Snapchat are probably the closest substitutes for
Facebook for non-text type of sharing.

Many people want the _utility_ provided by Facebook; they just don't want the
targeted ads and privacy leaks. Therefore, a 1-to-1 replacement for Facebook
accurately captures the (yet-to-be-invented?) alternative they want.

------
Yetanfou
Facebook (et al) is nothing but a blip on the time line of human history. Just
like "we" have a history without Facebook I see no problems in a future
without Facebook. Part of this future will come to pass due to legislation
(GDPR being a good start), part of it due to the product - Facebook's users -
becoming sentient and aware of the way it has been used. Another part will
come to pass due to the ever rising censorship on sites like Facebook which
will eventually lead to it becoming a bland repository of pablum as anything
which could be construed as being even the least controversial will be locked
behind dire warnings or flat-out refused with an accompanying block for the
user.

~~~
joncrane
> Facebook's users - becoming sentient and aware

> a bland repository of pablum

I believe you are overestimating the intelligence and "woke-ness" of the
Facebook user community, and of humanity in general.

~~~
Lionsion
> I believe you are overestimating the intelligence and "woke-ness" of the
> Facebook user community, and of humanity in general.

That's an extremely cynical and pessimistic outlook that allows for little
actual improvement.

If enough motivated people blast their feeds with news about how Facebook
users are being used and exploited, I could see enough Facebook users becoming
"sentient and aware" to cripple the network.

It won't die completely, at least no right away (MySpace is still around,
after all), but I think a dent can be made.

------
amelius
A lot would be solved by outlawing _targeted_ advertising.

~~~
Letmesleep69
Seems impossible without outlawing all advertising. Advertising in the nytimes
over some other paper or advertising on fox over cnn are all examples of
targeted advertising. You'd have to make people randomly choose advertising
spots from all of media. Doesn't seem feasible.

~~~
pdkl95
> Advertising in the nytimes over some other paper or advertising on fox over
> cnn are all examples of targeted advertising.

"Targeted" advertising generally refers to the tracking-based targeting of
individual people. Re-defining the term to include all types of advertising
makes the term mostly useless.

> Doesn't seem feasible.

Banning targeted advertising would be easy with legislation that bans tracking
and showing ads to individuals.

> You'd have to make people randomly choose advertising spots from all of
> media.

Traditional advertising methods worked fine for _centuries_. Nobody[1] places
ads randomly; you advertise where your product's audience will see it.

[1] Advertising intended to build general brand awareness instead of selling a
specific product or service might buy ads somewhat randomly, because the goal
is simply getting the brand name seen widely and often.

~~~
Letmesleep69
Well I understood targeted advertising as advertising with a target in mind.
So advertising on msnbc to target liberals and fox for conservatives. In terms
of tracking people and using their data to precisely target them then I agree
with Richard Stallmann's article here:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebo...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-
abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance)

~~~
zrobotics
That's too broad of a definition, it effectively reduces the term 'targeted
advertising' to just 'advertising'. For example, even if my advertisement
isn't trying to target broad categories of people (roadside billboard, etc)
_any_ ad will have a target in mind: consumers of my product.

So no, targeted advertising is _not_ any ad with a target in mind, that is
just advertising. Targeted ads are distinguished from regular ads based on
targeting a specific individual. An ad in the WSJ may be aimed at a broad
category of people interested in business news, but if I know for a fact that
'Letmesleep69' happens to be a reader of that paper and I take out an ad that
specifically refers to that user name, then it would be a targeted ad.

edit: formatting

~~~
18pfsmt
I don't think the word 'targeted' has as narrow a definition as you are
proposing (at least in the common vernacular). In writing laws, as in code,
one has to be very specific and define things properly, but not in frank
discussion.

Disclosure: I believe in the eventual success of the fediverse.

------
SakeOfBrevity
"(...) when it comes to Facebook, the rot is deep. It can’t be excised. It can
only be replaced by something else, by a form of connectivity that treats
people not as laborers or commodities, but as human beings."

Almost on point. Facebook has ingrained itself into socio-individual behaviour
schemas. Social medias are likely here to stay for a long time and I don't see
a company treating it's users as 'human beings' not 'commodities' being a
front-runner to win a hypothethical future social media companies race; there
are just no areas left that any rival company could simultaneously 1) exploit
to stay profitable 2) make people use it.

There will likely be some decentralized services but that's all.

~~~
Lionsion
> ...and I don't see a company treating it's users as 'human beings' not
> 'commodities' being a front-runner to win a hypothethical future social
> media companies race; there are just no areas left that any rival company
> could simultaneously 1) exploit to stay profitable 2) make people use it.

There are a few billionaires who are having second thoughts about a lot of
this, I wonder if one could fund a rival non-profit network and run it at a
loss until it has enough momentum.

I know I'd shill for a non-profit, user-respecting social network and donate
for its upkeep, but I just don't have the resources to keep one going.

------
GarrisonPrime
It’s too bad an otherwise well written article on an important topic soiled
itself with political statements.

If you think it didn’t, I suggest you have some hidden biases.

------
a_brawling_boo
I am surprised no one has mentioned mastodon. Organizations or individuals can
set up their own server and people can interact with their local communities
that can police and or use the data as they want, AND there is a federated
feed of all the mastodon instances where you interact in a public forum.

------
himom
Facebook’s downfalls are numerous:

\- ads

\- promotion of gossip to a global audience

\- peer-pressured risk-taking

\- pics, videos and other content that’s usually boring

A real friends platform:

\- video / text chat

\- arranging spontaneous and planned activities

\- gather/raise funds for group activities

\- where people are at

\- what people are up to

\- finding new friends from friends of friends for activities

\- find new interests, get recommendations

\- visualize social circles

\- paid for by users

\- never sells data

~~~
the_common_man
Who pays for the real friends platform?

~~~
jacobush
Who pays for the real friends?

~~~
pgeorgi
The payment isn't for the friends, but for the environment in which you meet
them:

You could pay membership fees for a club to be able to use their rooms to hang
out with your peers. (paid community server)

You can meet at your home, where you have to clean up and bring snacks
yourself. (personal hosting)

Or you can meet in a cafe, where access is free, with the expectation that
there will be a different but related financial transaction (food and
beverages). ("free" servers paid by ads)

I can't think of a good analogy of meeting your friends in a fully public
space.

------
olivermarks
TLDR

"Ultimately, to challenge Facebook, Google, and the many unknown players of
the data economy, we must devise new business models and structural incentives
that aren’t rooted in manipulation and coercion; that don’t depend on the
constant surveillance of users, on gathering information on everything they
read and purchase, and on building that information into complex dossiers
designed to elicit some action — a click, a purchase, a vote. We must move
beyond surveillance capitalism and its built-in inequities. In the short-term,
that might be achieved by turning to basic subscription services, by paying
for the things we use. But on a longer time horizon, we must consider whether
we want to live in a world that converts all of our experiences into machine-
readable data — data that doesn’t belong to us, that doesn’t serve us"

//

I have no idea how we can avoid this - Google is so invasive it is
increasingly tracking and recording everything about our lives. Gillian Tett
had a good piece in the FT about how autocomplete in search fields influences
our thinking.
[https://www.ft.com/content/7dc8eae4-4d99-11e8-97e4-13afc22d8...](https://www.ft.com/content/7dc8eae4-4d99-11e8-97e4-13afc22d86d4)
Google maps records any changes we make to our property for future
permit/permissions comparisons etc - we have no control over this and little
ability to opt out.

------
DSingularity
Aside from privacy there is another important issue to consider. Facebook
makes censorship decisions it has no authority and probably little expertise
to make. All with little to no accountability.

Consider the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the censorship of Palestinian
voices as an example. In general there should be no tolerance for speech that
incites violence. Everybody agrees to this. But in this particular case things
are different. The Palestinians are an occupied people and the Israeli army
and Israeli colonizing settlers are occupying forces. The international
community is almost in total agreement — the Palestinians have every right to
engage in armed resistance against the occupation forces. Yet Facebook still
delete accounts which call for resistance. To make matters worse, they allow
the formidable, multi-million dollar funded, Israeli state-aponsered
propaganda machine to use Facebook to normalize occupation, to demonize
Palestinians, to dehumanize Palestinians, and to disrupt foreign
protest/resistance in western democracies. How is this not morally bankrupt!?

Come on. I do not understand this — how can any educated individual support a
company like Facebook is beyond me. How can all those top notch researchers
work for them? Facebook has 0 moral integrity.

It tells quite a story about us techies. While they are some of the smartest
people they are also the least morally-driven people. So selfish. Look at the
world you Facebook engineers are creating. A world where a massive, world-
wide, media platform doesn’t direct flows of information based on ethics and
responsibility. The information flows based on profit and power. Of course
Facebook will acquiesce to the majority of Israeli government requests. They
project billions of dollars worth of power. Palestinians barely have enough to
eat. Screw what the Palestinians think, what can they do? When Facebook and
it’s platform acts as the Israeli propagandist and censor Facebook only loses
if it’s users or employees get upset. What are the chances of that? Who
controls what reaches our newfeeds? Are our feeds not filtered by what’s
popular according to the masses and what hasn’t been downvotes to oblivion?

I truly despise Facebook. I hate how they have no accountability. I hate the
effects they are having on the world and people. I hate the way they influence
how people think and nobody calls it censorship.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/1...](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/12/facebook-
google-israel-social-media) [2] [https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-
partisans-work-censor...](https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-partisans-
work-censor-internet/)

------
Martin1972
Great!

