It already exists in the form of Discord and Slack. Folks looking for a generic community need that community to exist en masse before they sign up. This is the problem dating apps have. No one is interested in joining because no one is in there.
Semi-private social apps that are invite only (like a company's Slack channels) or require discovery (like a game's Discord) have made lots of money and neither of those companies uses ads.
- How would one prove that no data harvesting is taking place or would not take place after the sale of the company? a.k.a. bait and switch
- What is the business model? Subscriptions will not pay for the initial OpEx / CapEx investment. How will investors make a profit?
- How will your company lure people away from the other big platforms that all their friends and coworkers are on? What are the incentives beyond promises of no data collection? Most people no longer accept good-faith promises any more as greedy people have emptied that bucket.
There is a place for everything under the sun. Yes people will pay for it.
If you can assure that:
1. Till 2036 it will be definitely be online.
2. It will be not an echo chamber. People are needed to manage this. You need to hire a wide mix of people from various geographic locations for this. It's doable but certainly not for a single person. Some organization like Mozilla should do this initiative.
3. You can ask for monthly payment of 5$
4. You can think of other things
I would pay for use of decentralised apps which depend on some resources that cost money, for example an index that would make them much faster to find something.
Great feedback - i take the point on verification on data harvesting, any ideas on solving that?
I think subscriptions could work, people pay not to have ads in other media they consume, ive built a prototype platform, that allows users to curate their life in it, part social network, part journal, part support. i want to also build in safety features for children so parents feel safe letting their children online. would love some feedback on the premise.
Children shouldn't be on social network. They will gain nothing. Rather they should be encouraged to join local friends in playgrounds or local hobby clubs or local vocational things, anything local is fine. Even video games, books or films (safe for kids)are fine too if they have no local clubs or groups accessible
> i want to also build in safety features for children so parents feel safe letting their children online. would love some feedback on the premise.
How would you handle the ever changing online safety act in the UK and Australia now that there is now needed regulation in place for social networks with more countries to follow?
It’s a complicated question nowadays as the first generation of networks that were really all about networking have mostly died out or morphed into algorithmic feeds. So the question is whether there’s a market for this classical networking at all. If so for a network to make sense you do need networking effects of some kind as people would likely not want to pay to be registered to a service that shows them having 0 friends. I do think it’s a difficult bet.
I can however see this for niches and small groups. Something more akin to old school bulletin board forums. In a sense Metafilter works a bit that way already.
If you assume the unit of value is a pre-existing group rather than an individual user, do you think paid access becomes viable earlier, or does it introduce different failure modes?
I’m interested in whether group-first adoption meaningfully changes the cold start problem, or simply moves it?
It is not uncommon to pay for access to in-person social clubs and other third places, so I don't see an inherent barrier. Indeed, these can be considered Veblen goods, whereby you my may want to pay to have access to a place that keeps those who can't pay out. We see some of that on "elite" dating apps, so why not on a more general social network?
It already exists in the form of Discord and Slack. Folks looking for a generic community need that community to exist en masse before they sign up. This is the problem dating apps have. No one is interested in joining because no one is in there.
Semi-private social apps that are invite only (like a company's Slack channels) or require discovery (like a game's Discord) have made lots of money and neither of those companies uses ads.
- How would one prove that no data harvesting is taking place or would not take place after the sale of the company? a.k.a. bait and switch
- What is the business model? Subscriptions will not pay for the initial OpEx / CapEx investment. How will investors make a profit?
- How will your company lure people away from the other big platforms that all their friends and coworkers are on? What are the incentives beyond promises of no data collection? Most people no longer accept good-faith promises any more as greedy people have emptied that bucket.
There is a place for everything under the sun. Yes people will pay for it. If you can assure that: 1. Till 2036 it will be definitely be online. 2. It will be not an echo chamber. People are needed to manage this. You need to hire a wide mix of people from various geographic locations for this. It's doable but certainly not for a single person. Some organization like Mozilla should do this initiative. 3. You can ask for monthly payment of 5$ 4. You can think of other things
I would pay for use of decentralised apps which depend on some resources that cost money, for example an index that would make them much faster to find something.
Great feedback - i take the point on verification on data harvesting, any ideas on solving that?
I think subscriptions could work, people pay not to have ads in other media they consume, ive built a prototype platform, that allows users to curate their life in it, part social network, part journal, part support. i want to also build in safety features for children so parents feel safe letting their children online. would love some feedback on the premise.
Children shouldn't be on social network. They will gain nothing. Rather they should be encouraged to join local friends in playgrounds or local hobby clubs or local vocational things, anything local is fine. Even video games, books or films (safe for kids)are fine too if they have no local clubs or groups accessible
> i want to also build in safety features for children so parents feel safe letting their children online. would love some feedback on the premise.
How would you handle the ever changing online safety act in the UK and Australia now that there is now needed regulation in place for social networks with more countries to follow?
It’s a complicated question nowadays as the first generation of networks that were really all about networking have mostly died out or morphed into algorithmic feeds. So the question is whether there’s a market for this classical networking at all. If so for a network to make sense you do need networking effects of some kind as people would likely not want to pay to be registered to a service that shows them having 0 friends. I do think it’s a difficult bet.
I can however see this for niches and small groups. Something more akin to old school bulletin board forums. In a sense Metafilter works a bit that way already.
That distinction resonates.
If you assume the unit of value is a pre-existing group rather than an individual user, do you think paid access becomes viable earlier, or does it introduce different failure modes?
I’m interested in whether group-first adoption meaningfully changes the cold start problem, or simply moves it?
Who would want to pay for a social network?
I don't pay for X or any other social network.
Perhaps donations could work instead?
It is not uncommon to pay for access to in-person social clubs and other third places, so I don't see an inherent barrier. Indeed, these can be considered Veblen goods, whereby you my may want to pay to have access to a place that keeps those who can't pay out. We see some of that on "elite" dating apps, so why not on a more general social network?