Create your own social network? Instead of knocking somebody else's efforts, it is possible to create your own. Receive rather than dispense criticism!
I wonder if we need more silos. Are we wasting our time creating or selecting from dinky walled environments instead of concentrating our collective efforts on reforming existing social networks?
Are there any collective efforts organizing to reform Facebook, YouTube, etc.? We had the Early Access Community here on G+ which, though in house, worked fairly well.
https://alternativeto.net/software/moosocial/
I wonder if we need more silos. Are we wasting our time creating or selecting from dinky walled environments instead of concentrating our collective efforts on reforming existing social networks?
Are there any collective efforts organizing to reform Facebook, YouTube, etc.? We had the Early Access Community here on G+ which, though in house, worked fairly well.
https://alternativeto.net/software/moosocial/
MooSocial is far too expensive. For the price it wants us to pay I have several year's worth of funding for my website.
ReplyDelete$2716 is not worth it whatsoever
ReplyDeleteNot sure where you're looking, but it doesn't appear to cost anywhere near that amount. $99 for a site licence, and a few hundred for the web app. https://moosocial.com/#pricing
ReplyDeleteNever gonna host as many users as one of the Federated offerings reach.
moosocial.com - mooSocial - PHP Social Network Script
The webapp is not the full package that most would want for a site. Their most expensive package which has what I can do for free by myself costs $2716
ReplyDeleteOpen standards is what we need - then different networks can all follow each other and interact. There is XMPP and the Fediverse. If e-mail can have one standard across all platforms why is it so difficult for social media.
ReplyDeleteBecause emails are vastly different than social media. Social media is complex and requires more features. A complete standard is not possible. We all have the same general concepts but we all execute it different. It's just like video games. They all follow a basic idea but they all have their own features
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the point of the distributed networks, like diaspora and mastadon? Which allows you to make your own social network without being walled in and gets the benefit of being able to connect with a bunch of other people not directly on your host?
ReplyDeleteYoume.social was a good example of a G+ user who went ahead and created his own social media platform and is hands on managing it. At least posts there are openly visible so can be reshared externally. I'm hoping they federate too at some stage.
ReplyDeleteIMO any attempts to "reform" a privately owned social network is a fool's errand. Companies have the right to run their private social networks the way they see fit per their terms of service and in compliance with jurisdictional law. Users have the right to agree or not agree to any terms of service. Just as with G+, by creating an account we all agreed to the terms of service stipulated by Google and its code of conduct while using Google products and services.
ReplyDeleteWhere one can be more effective in controlling their user experience is by perhaps joining the Free Social Network on any of the federated network types or hosting their own walled garden style social network.
Shelenn Ayres User influence is possible, though difficult.
ReplyDeleteI was a member of G+ Early Access and can testify that there was genuine interest in improving G+ on behalf of the users. There was no question that Google staff assigned to EA were working hard to make G+ work. There was also no question that the Google Administration bigwigs had lost interest and were making things difficult for EA assigned staff. Our influence on small things was great, but the big decisions were as much a surprise to EA staff as they were to us users.
As far as I know, no similar group exists on Facebook, MeWe, Flickr, Blogger, etc. But that's only so far as I know. If anybody has heard of such a group operating with or without the blessing of the social media host, please let me know. "Speaking" to automatons on "Help" pages is never as satisfying as actually summoning forth a real human! Do any of these established social media even have a suggestion box?
Alex You seem to be quite experienced in these matters.
ReplyDeleteDid you start from scratch setting your social media system up, or did one of the free alternatives I linked above give you an initial head start?
Will your platform have a "users group" or "suggestion box" feature? It might give you an advantage over those that do not. Perhaps none will be necessary until you scale up for some major traffic.
We've done all of our work from scratch actually. The only time we used anything that wasn't ours was for prototyping our designs.
ReplyDeleteJeff Diver While I don't doubt some influence was possible it couldn't have happened without insiders. With Google for example, we now know the insiders are quitting much like other companies who are now putting profit before user needs when it comes to user generated content or they are exploiting the users who remain.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean there are not good companies out there still. It simply means they are under no obligation to embrace the needs of users. It is a far easier path for users aka communities to embrace communities run by communities using open source software built by communities for communities. When companies lose communities from their for profit walled gardens in a way that impacts their pocket books, they will pay attention.
Otherwise, they remain profiteers who focus on forcing G+ users to pay for the privilege of using it as do others who offer premium services for users. Google has clearly removed its focus on community needs in favor of more profits. The cost of continuing free G+ is a drop in the bucket of its current profits and could have been made sustainable easily.
On the premium services side, the difference for me is on whether they are doing business in an honest way - when the dishonest and socially irresponsible businesses show me who they are, I believe them. I won't single out who I consider dishonest here.
On the quality of the community side (for me), clearly FB is a negative because its owners contributed to the rise of the alt-right as a part of it. But if my target market is there, I have no choice but to market there. The same can be said (by evidence of its users) for some alternate sites for G+ users. For that matter, Google and Twitter both did not succeed in proving to me they were not partially responsible for the rise of the alt-right but at least both of those companies had policies against hate speech and did some enforcement (because of their insiders).
But the point here is, there is no publicly owned (taxpayer owned) social network that is subject to freedom of speech. All of the existing networks are privately owned with 100% right to establish what is acceptable in the terms of service. The only exception is when public servants in the course of their jobs have official public accounts on private networks. Hence the recent ruling that Trump et al violated the law when blocking people on their Twitter accounts. Twitter restored access under court order. But this had zero reform impact regarding a positive user experience.
Shelenn Ayres >"... it couldn't have happened without insiders..." Agreed. Do you know where any of these insiders have gone? Have they disappeared within the Google organization or decided to strike out on their own? (This is a question for all who read this, not just Shelenn.)
ReplyDeleteAlex I am pleased to hear that you are not trying to do all this on your own as an individual! The sales pitches for mooSocial, etc. make it sound like an individual could aspire to do this independent of an organization, sort of like a large blog.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a time when you become too busy to act as company spokesperson, how do you plan to handle public relations? Are you going to go the "help page" route without any user group?
It has been my experience that, as social media mature, they tend to distance themselves from users. Early (usually founder) responsiveness to user concerns hardens into layers of bureaucracy that insulate the social media company from crucial user feedback. Will your plans for "scaling up" include some means of sensing the needs and whims of your users?
One of the reasons Google+ failed is that there was no consideration given to long range planning. I hope your organization has a mission statement supported by goals and policies with clear objectives. And that primary among them is a goal to maintain excellent user relations by actually listening to users for their useful ideas and feedback.
The American Management Association came to Cornell University Libraries in the 1970s for an exercise in corporate strategic planning. That's where some of my ideas come from. It was a very helpful experience. In general it went your written mission statement is supported by written, measurable goals that are achieved by your company policies. (Doesn't sound like G+ much at all, does it?!) You can do better & I hope you will!
amanet.org - Strategic Planning - AMA Strategy Formulation Courses
/Sub
ReplyDeleteJeff Diver I don't know specifically where insiders have gone but have read articles where they stated reasons for leaving Google and strong criticism of the handling of the G+ consumer sunset. My observation on Google's business focus change is not unique.
ReplyDeleteShelenn Ayres Google's reputation was great at one time. When it started collaboration with libraries to scan documents Google almost sounded like a public service organization! I guess when you're at the top of the mountain, there's only one way to go. To my surprise, even now Google enjoys good press according to this cheerful 2018 article, obviously not written by anybody connected with G+!
ReplyDeleteprweek.com - Study: Google has the best reputation for corporate responsibility in the world
Ex Google employees claim they left due to their anticonsumer practices, putting money before the users.
ReplyDeleteI'm keen on the git (with or without GitLab / GitHub) model.
ReplyDeletekarimyaghmour.com - gitgeist: a git-based social network proof of concept
Alex Who is "we"?
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius
ReplyDeleteThe team behind Atmos.
There's 12 of us currently including advisors and localization team.
Edward Morbius Are there any collective efforts organizing to reform Facebook, YouTube, etc.?
ReplyDeleteAlex Do any of the social networks (including some of the new ones that have been referenced in this post) have an organized way of not just accepting, but encouraging user input? Is there a G+ Early Access Community equivalent or substitute anywhere on any social network?
If anybody reading this post has any information, please respond. How or IF social networks "listen" to users is crucial to how those social networks perform for the user.
P.S. I probably should know, but don't. What's "Atmos"?
ReplyDeleteAtmos is an alternative created by G+ users. The Devs are a bunch of friends who have made stuff like it before.
ReplyDeleteAs for ways of recommendation, not currently. We did have a Discord, however I prefer either tagging me with questions and concerns or commenting on one of my posts related to Atmos as it's a lot easier for me to respond to there.
Once we get the mail server setup we will allow users to be able to subscribe to a mailing list. I'll be sure to write a news update to this community once it is ready.
Jeff Diver My views are as Shelenn Ayres's on site reform. It simply does not happen.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius That's discouraging. Are your views a result of your experience, or have you never tried?
ReplyDeleteOn G+ Early Access we could see results, so I'm not ready to give up. We were not able to effect major change, but we did win some skirmishes. It seems to me that social media that listens to users ought to have some advantage over those that are take it or leave it.
Jeff Diver Tried on multiple platforms.
ReplyDeleteThere's occasionally been modest progress, but seldom much.
Lawsuits, regulation, and shareholder action, maybe.
Edward Morbius I see. If you had to rank various social media on their user responsiveness, based on your experience could you do so? Are there differences? Do those differences matter to you?
ReplyDeleteIf it is desirable that social media be responsive to users, why aren't they designed that way? Why don't they all have user groups, suggestion boxes, etc.?
Perhaps there was a missed point. The Fediverse/Federation/Activity Web is run by communities for communities and already focuses on the needs of users without regard to profit. This is by design because it is decentralized with no single authority.
ReplyDelete"The Federation refers to a global social network composed of nodes that talk to each other. Each of them is an installation of software which supports one of the federated social web protocols."
There are about 2.7 million users and growing. The growth since the G+ consumer sunset announcement is close to 1 million users or approximately 1/3 of the active G+ user base at that time. The general observation is no BS, no ads, 100% open source full transparency, community focused moderation with no hate speech allowed. That does not mean there are not vigorous debates - it means primarily civil discourse exists and netiquette is expected. Reform there is not needed.
Shelenn Ayres Thanks! You're right. I missed it.
ReplyDeleteIn your view, is this a better solution than a publicly owned social media network? (I just posted on that subject.) For those that wish to explore some options:
fediverse.party - Fediverse
Alex, will Atmos be part of the Fediverse? (Either way, I'm going to ask you why.) ;-)
ReplyDeleteJeff Diver It appears you are gathering research data for whatever reason. You should know your reference to Fediverse party is incorrect - it is not a social network. That is simply a website that presents statistics it gathers about the global decentralized free social network I described.
ReplyDeleteAnother statistics source that also gathers data about the global decentralized free social network is https://the-federation.info/
Both of them gather and report statistics a bit differently but the methods used are open source. I've done a comparative analysis of them over the past few months. One could average their results for a clear picture of the user base.
My opinion and recommendation is fairly clear that the above mentioned space is where I recommend all users migrate. Which choice of network type should be focused on their use cases. For my use case, to fully replace G+ and integrate with other social networks, I chose Friendica as a network type.
Shelenn Ayres Thanks! I'm trying to figure out what is going on. This is a decision making process for me as I try to decide where to spend my time.
ReplyDeleteI am searching for places where folks actually interact with each other and are actively and respectfully exploring topics of mutual concern.
The link you provided gave me a good comparison of the various network alternatives within the Fediverse. I'll keep looking....
the-federation.info - The Federation - a statistics hub
Jeff Diver Differentiate your choices to look for equivalent alternatives. G+ is a macroblog platform so only compare to macroblog solutions. For example Mastodon and Pleroma are microblogs like Twitter. Diaspora, Friendica, Hubzilla, Socialhome, and a few others are macroblogs. However, each has a use case that matters. You cannot currently have communities, edit posts, and like comments on Diaspora but you can on Friendica. If these things matter, you pare down your choices.
ReplyDeleteShelenn Ayres Thanks so much for helping me understand the difference between macroblogs and microblogs! I'll probably opt for macroblogs, as by your definition that is what I am used to here on G+.
ReplyDelete