|
To succeed, all you gotta do is not become so self-righteous as to assume you can correctly identify "fake news", or impose your own sense of morals on your users.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Fake news won't get in the way of success. The major television networks have been doing that for decades with plenty of success.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Facebook
Actually, it was severalth. Remember MySpace, Friendster, Six Degrees, Live Journal, etc?
And that's not to mention "communities", like the ones set up by companies like AOL and Compuserve, or Usenet.
IMO, facebook is probably the final step too far, in that it goes further than most people actually want; and "social" networking will move toward being far more restricted and "private" -- except, of course, for marketers/advertisers, attention whores, and others with nothing of value to "share".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
"Severalth" - is that really an "official" English word? Whether it is or not: I like it!
The one I would mention is Second Life. Even state agencies established their information boots in SL. If you didn't have an SL account, there was no other simple way of obtaining the same information as was available in the SL information boot.
Second Life was so real that one German guy was dragged to court for sexual abuse of minors in SL! Sure, there was an 18 year age limit, but that didn't prevent you from making your avatar look like a twelve year old. The avatar of this German guy had misled this twelve-year-old-looking avatar into immoral and illegal acts, for which he was sued (even though noone claimed that the person with the 'underage' avatar was underage). So, in some respects, SL was even more "real life" than Facebook is.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: "Severalth" - is that really an "official" English word?
I wouldn't want anyone to go away with the idea that it really is an "official" word -- but I doubt that anyone would misunderstand its meaning.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I think that is how Shakespeare coined so many words. They sounded right, made sense, and everyone picked up on the new words. So if enough of us start using the word it will be added to the Oxford dictionary.
|
|
|
|
|
<Aussie accent>Me and Shake-o, we'd be mates!<Aussie accent>
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12871252 wrote: I want to know what is the biggest factor stopping the next platform of social media being developed to take on Facebook?
Because I have no interest in writing a social media app.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would, if there was a way to administer electric shocks when the user posts something really stupid. Which would be most of Farcebook and Twatter... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Is that going into the CP suggestion box as well?
|
|
|
|
|
So many eejits, so few electrons....
|
|
|
|
|
Programming challenge of the week?
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
It might be fun to do as an intellectual exercise, but can you imagine supporting it?
I'd probably be shopping for machetes and machine guns, within a week.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
One problem is that you can never accurately predict which application will meet with success.
|
|
|
|
|
The social media wave has passed - it's all about antisocial networks these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12871252 wrote: I don't have the first idea ... I want to know ... It seems like
Look in a flower !
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't say it's stopped being developed. However those that are developed didn't got attraction as much as FB and Twatter.
modified 5-Feb-17 13:51pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12871252 wrote: what is the biggest factor stopping the next platform of social media being developed to take on Facebook?
Not sure if you remember... but nearly every single media news organization was advertising for Facebook when they appeared on the scene... even many international news organizations.
Remember that tiny little Facebook logo on CNN, FOX, CBS and just about every news organization? Even more amazing that this was occurring years before they were publicly traded and had very little capital.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
One of the big things stopping a competitor from arising is that whenever a social network threatens to become popular, Facebook likes to step in and buy them.
And by social network, I don't mean things that look and much like Facebook. I mean things that people start to use instead of Facebook. They bought Instagram and Whatsapp because many people were starting to use Instagram for sharing photos instead of FB, and were using Whatsapp instead of Facebook Messenger. To be fair, the Whatsapp acquisition was also about extending Facebook's reach, since it's available on many feature phones where FB Messenger isn't an option.
Facebook isn't likely to disappear, but the risk comes from companies like Snapchat who siphon away the age 15-25 crowd. I think Mark Zuckerberg's worst nightmare would a scenario where all the young people have abandoned ship for a newer and cooler social network, and FB ends up being an echo chamber of old people grumping about politics, posting fake news, and sharing pictures of their cats. I'll admit that I mostly use FB for sharing pictures of my cat these days, so I'm probably part of the problem. 
|
|
|
|
|
You just came out with an idea... 'Animalbook'. Sharing animal videos, social media that focusses on animals.
|
|
|
|
|
Facebook has momentum. Back then, Zuckerberg just got licky. No, really, he just managed to fill the gap that the duying Myspace, Uboot and what else they're all called left. Right now, you have to convince existing FB users to switch to your platform and that's pretty impossible due to the laziness of human nature. One social network, ok. Two of them, what for?
|
|
|
|
|
You'd need to offer something that FB doesn't offer that's compelling enough to make people want to use it...and that would take too long for FB to copy and you think is worth more than the $1 billion that FB would offer to buy you off with if they couldn't copy it.
How about this? The 'perfect' matchmaker. Takes every single bit of information about everyone online, and picks the _one_ person on the internet that is (currently) your perfect romantic match....and updates it every time a bit of information is added, so it's a constantly moving target. People who put more personal information and more recently would get better recommendations. Call it 'THE ONE'.
|
|
|
|
|
The thing that facebook got right is making it not about you, but rather about your friends. That is why most people check in. Not to post but to read
|
|
|
|
|
I think a big factor in Facebook's success was that it started out on college campuses with an already electronically connected demographic. Once you got the kids, you got [many of] the parents.
I've found that you can't find most of my demographic (born in the 1960s*) on Facebook, but you can find their kids. (Though this is changing, especially for those with grandkids, since Facebook is a convenient way to get pictures, announcements and all that.)
*Only after writing that did I realize that if you were born in 1969, odds are you graduated college in 1991, which is when, for all intents and purposes, the web started.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
