The next wave that will eventually unseat Facebook (the product) will have to be something entirely different. And it might even come from Facebook (the company).
People want to be able to find their friends, so you need some way for discovery to happen. If there's no tracking locations and relationships, then how do you do it? Usernames are the only privacy-concious way to accomplish that, and then you've just described MySpace. Facebook works because when you drunkenly befriend someone at a party, you can find them the next day online. It's bootstrapped discovery. Like it or not, that's what most of the world likes about Facebook.
Google almost solved this problem with G+, but they did it by scanning your email contacts. Is that still a privacy breach?
Though...Bloomberg Chat meets your criteria (ex-fee). It consists of ~300K financial users who pay ~$25K/year/terminal. Many argue this is the killer feature of Bloomberg. I agree. It's like an exclusive, digital country club.
I'm not following.
I don't think it would work in the world we live in because people are long used to getting things for "free" (from the days of "free email"), where they exchange their attention and personal information for some services. Somehow people have also been trained to avoid even tiny costs in monetary terms (one reason why iOS App Store pricing is always a bad trap for most developers). In my own experience, the cost-benefit ratio takes a longer time to analyze and convince myself of in certain cases.
But if there were such a platform, I would certainly want to try it if it provided similar features (not lagging like Google+ and not including features in "New" that were in "Classic").
When Ello started a few years ago, I really wanted to use it and see it grow fast. But it turned out to be a platform that self-targeted some niche artistic crowd and didn't focus on features I wanted (like groups).
I keep pushing people in my circle to try new things as much as I can possibly do (like Telegram, Wire, Signal). So I'd be very interested in breaking out of Facebook.
MySpace died because they weren't evil enough.
We already have this. It's called "Diaspora". It's a great idea using all the things you talk about: decentralized, peer-to-peer, etc.
No one uses it.
>but I don't require mainstream adoption to use it.
Then I encourage you to set up your own Diaspora account. Maybe if enough people do so, it'll eventually get somewhere.
Diaspora is many steps in the right direction and looks like a great alternative to fb. (Slightly disappointing to see support for non-privacy oriented social networks being baked-in. I guess that's a strategic move.)
The average person just doesn't care about privacy at all.
I always feel that I come across as a tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist when I'm trying to explain to friends why I don't use Facebook.
Facebook had a net income of $3.6bn from 1.86bn monthly active users, or $1.93 per user.
I don't think many users are going to work for what Facebook could reasonably pay out of that....
Worse, any remotely attractive payment might well lead to the rapid creation of billions of fake accounts.
It's more like, you pay out to the users that generate a lot of views, and after a threshold. If 1/100 users is a great content generator, the idea that they may make $100/mo is very attractive to switch (and take their followers with them).
As for fake accounts, you bundle in the proof-of-identity stuff and whatever else current networks use to keep bots out. It's its own engineering problem.
If anything, I place more blame on "legit news" and their "80+% WIN!" predictions for Clinton, ensuring that anyone who thought about casting a protest vote stayed home.