The tracking and data mining is only one problem, another is having my data locked in a silo. What I'd like from a social network is for it to be more like an RSS reader: my posts should be followable via RSS, and my news feed should just be an RSS reader from which I can follow others on the same network and from outside the network. That's a pretty simple way to get me interested.
I also would like if messaging would be handled by something like an email address (like Facebook added and then removed once upon a time), or better yet a derivative of email that's easier to self-host and encrypted by default (maybe something like matrix.org).
To me, working to break down the huge silos is the best thing a non-profit social network could bring. And, to be completely honest, I'm not sure I'd even join it, because in this system I'd be able to participate without joining the network so I could just self-host my website (and RSS feed) and use my own feed reader as I do now.
EDIT to expand on this after thinking about it a bit. Since podcasting has been the most successful use case for RSS so far, perhaps a good way to go forward with the above idea would be to allow attaching arbitrary files to posts, and to embed images/audio/video (as they're be embedded on Facebook). This would make it easy to host a podcast/video feed, or image feed on the network while still being a part of the larger open podcasting/video/visual art communities, and it'd be easy to follow. This could provide a decent avenue for advertising the network to certain segments of potential users. And (as long as you embedded items with simple img/audio/video html tags) communities like the free software community and the open web community would probably be pretty ecstatic about it at the very least.
A non-profit is run by real people and a social network needs an infrastructure. There are a lot of bills to be paid. The money paying the bills was obviously earned by someone doing things for profit or is donated by a lottery winner. I don't trust lottery winners, especially when they want to manage my personal data "for free".
If you're not paying for the product, you are the product. That's why I only use social networks with a realistic monthly/annual fee, like Xing.com or meetup.com.
What about Firefox, Linux, jQuery? Am I their product?
A lot of Facebook's infrastructure is about advertising and tracking. Also, if you could run some kind of P2P social network you distribute a lot of the costs.
So I disagree that the choice is between a large corporate-owned social network or no social network at all. A non-profit network is feasible, if tremendously difficult.
As a Linux user I have to admit this is a good argument.
I like how DHH thinks about it. Make a simple product (with his own words: it is not rocket surgery) which solves problems, do it for-profit and put a price on it. After earning your salary and paying your bills you can still do rocket surgery for fun and give back to the community. Or do it also for profit promoting yourself as a professional or even your product. That's totally fine for me because in Rework he even points out that this is the part of the Basecamp marketing strategy (Out-teach your competition).
If someone brands his social network as "non-profit" only to put ads on my screen hoping for my paid op-out, that is not OK for me. I trust humans who work for real money and sometimes give back to the community but I don't trust saints.
Anyhow, we may be different and that is totally OK.
Not trying to come off as a true saint. I just believe marketplaces shouldn't be run by corporations. All these corporations are sucking the life out of the economy by imposing monopolistic taxes on everyone in their "networks".
Why because VC only fund monopolies and the stock market rewards giant hoards of cash off-shore. Is it fueled by jealousy, some, but imagine if all the businesses your talking about didn't have to pay 70 cents a click to advertise and they were rotated or some other more user friendly way display ads. or if you bought enough through a marketplace to cover your own costs you didn't need to see any ads.
Non-profits aren't bound to maximize profits they just have to cover costs.
I think it would be more of a protocol than a service.
I'm not saying the non-profit couldn't have advertising just that someone would have more control over their personal data with an option to pay to opt-out. Maybe use transactions to cover their usage. options for data storage and clients
I think it's focus would be on control and transparency. Of course, salaries have to be paid etc. but as the large companies control more and more of communication, distribution, and marketplaces (all of which are winner take all markets) I see serious problems ahead.
Especially the way VCs have skewed business growth with their herd mentality and the stock market not punishing tech companies for hoarding money and not paying out dividends.
> Telegram is supported by the Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov,[9] who is now a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis,[10] travelling the world in self-imposed exile.[11] Its client-side code is open-source software, whereas its server-side code is closed-sourced and proprietary.
Non-profits have revenue. They can and do charge for memberships, services, and products. There is no reason to assume that a social network run by a non-profit would be for free.
Just because you aren't paying for something different mean you are the product. And just because you are the product doesn't mean you are the only product.
Most of us even joined one by a for-profit. The problem is how to get my friends to move with me anywhere. Locked-in, network-effect, hen and egg problems
The problem with completely anonymous encrypted "speech"(assuming speech enables transactions) is it comes with some nasty side effects. Murder for hire, child porn, terrorism recruitment among others. Does any government have it right absolutely not.
But, to me those are the types of battles you would need to be willing to die for as well as your sons and daughters because your enemies are.
Not everyone is paranoid about government espionage, data mining, etc, but if you are, then you'll have to deal with the additional baggage that anonymity brings to the table.
That depends on whether there are enough real people on it, and it is a vicious circle because everyone would think the same. That said, if you can create one without all the stuff people hate about current social networks, you might make it attractive for enough people to join and set the ball rolling, and I might consider joining. (I am not being facetious.) So it being run by pro profit or non profit is a non issue.
As long as I am sure that I am not the product and the non-profit manages to overcome the network effect.
Bonus points for using or interfacing to standards like e-mail, RSS, IRC and the like. Additionally if most of the infrastructure is peer-to-peer. For example a social network based on WebRTC. This way a lot of centralized infrastructure goes away.
Yes, as long as I am okay with how such social network treats its user and its data.
I am still quite saddened hat Snake, the cryptographic social network, didn't get the appropriate funding when proposed on indiegogo. https://snake.li/
I think I'd much rather join a network where I'm in control of data. With tech-progress in p2p and the blockchains, I think the building blocks are already present for this kind of a network. If this were run by a non-profit, all the better.
probably the wrong question to ask. As has been pointed out, the key feature is "are my friends on it or is it easy to get them on it?" I can't think of a feature that would get the average FB user to switch.
if even someone comes up with a feature facebook it needs to not implement it after it catches on. pinterest, periscope, etc. not saying I have a good plan just interested in other peoples thoughts.
I also would like if messaging would be handled by something like an email address (like Facebook added and then removed once upon a time), or better yet a derivative of email that's easier to self-host and encrypted by default (maybe something like matrix.org).
To me, working to break down the huge silos is the best thing a non-profit social network could bring. And, to be completely honest, I'm not sure I'd even join it, because in this system I'd be able to participate without joining the network so I could just self-host my website (and RSS feed) and use my own feed reader as I do now.
EDIT to expand on this after thinking about it a bit. Since podcasting has been the most successful use case for RSS so far, perhaps a good way to go forward with the above idea would be to allow attaching arbitrary files to posts, and to embed images/audio/video (as they're be embedded on Facebook). This would make it easy to host a podcast/video feed, or image feed on the network while still being a part of the larger open podcasting/video/visual art communities, and it'd be easy to follow. This could provide a decent avenue for advertising the network to certain segments of potential users. And (as long as you embedded items with simple img/audio/video html tags) communities like the free software community and the open web community would probably be pretty ecstatic about it at the very least.