Every so often I post some things related to community led efforts to try to build some sort of alternative open services network to the current FAANG platforms. This is met with both scepticism and I guess dismissal of such an idea ever working. But I don't think that means we shouldn't try. It's really clear that the past two decades or so has led to the internet becoming siloed to these huge profit seeking blackholes. And while those companies have provided immense value, they are now also some sort of personal risk for our sensitive data and huge dependence on technology. It's not clear that we should be so highly dependent on things that are governed by single entities without the option for as good open services that are non-profit oriented.
I know how monumentally impossible that sounds, and it's obviously very clear we cannot replace what exists, nor would we want to, but perhaps just starting with one critical piece of software we all care about is the starting point. It doesn't take a lot of devs to do it, we've seen startups create value with less than 100 engineers. Looking at WhatsApp it was 50 at the time of acquisition with hundreds of millions of users.
So what I'm saying is, should we try? Should I try to do this? Is it worth the time and effort to attempt to establish an open alternative to the app platforms of today? Maybe just starting with one core thing like email or chat.
I'm interested in feedback, but I also have a proposal here I'd be curious to get thoughts on.
Example:
Running communities tend to want to share their runs. Facebook is really bad for that, so they gravitate to apps that auto-plot their runs on a map. They might share a screenshot on FB with their friends, but FB isn't enough form them. And FB will never add that feature (auto-mapping runs) to their platform because it just isn't used enough.
Another example:
Let's say you're an EV data freak and want to plot range/mph/temperature/electricity usage data for your EV. Well, you can upload that into a site (any site) as raw data...or take a picture...but wouldn't it be better if you could embed that data into a site so other people who share your obsession could use it for their analysis? Then you could plot general EV usage stats vs temperature vs speed for EVs around the world.
Basically, general-purpose platforms are good at lowest-common-denominator sharing, but if you really want to dig into the data they're not going to work so well.
There's always room for more platforms. Whether it's a wide-ranging platform is sort of irrelevant at the start. Remember, Facebook was created so people could connect with each other before college started (and a facebook was a bunch of headshots that the registrar sent out to everyone so you could theoretically recognize people).
If the site is focused enough and meets a community's needs and is not a PITA, users will flock there. That assumes you do some kind of marketing, of course.
Besides programmers, no-one cares about software. They only care about getting "whatever" done. So if your audience is only programmers, go for it!
I haven't written all that much about it so far, but my idea is to focus on community knowledge management.
IMHO, communities have enough places to hold their discussions. I think communities need a platform where they can build/store/organize their knowledge, share ideas, useful resources, etc. More focus on knowledge and people, and less on conversations.
Do you want to deal with porn uploads, illegal uploads, illegal posts, violence, potential doxxing from both sides of the lunatic asylum?
Personally that's why I didn't build something like this.
The solution is distributed, but not "federated" - those systems are god awful to use as an end user. There's a third solution I've been thinking about for many years now.
It's already here, it's called the Web.
You could quibble about the main browser engines being created by FAANG, but it's still a remarkably open platform. You can fork Chromium if you really want.
Read more: https://hypermedia.systems/introduction/
My gut reaction is the same as you say you've already heard. I think that the existing platforms have not provided much value at all, and instead have been detrimental to our world. But that might not be a fair reaction -- what value are you seeing from the big social platforms?
Because if you can identify the value that a new platform would offer, and build from scratch with specific positive goals in mind, maybe something could work. But if you are talking about starting with email or chat... those aren't the core values of FAANG platforms anyway, so I'm not sure you are clear on a vision for where you would go with a new platform. And without a solid vision and clear intent, I'd have to answer, "No", don't build it.
I feel a lot of the dismissive folks are ones thinking hyperscale, unicorns, big tech, growth hacking, network effects, and above all big monetization. But that is not where one has to go. It is certainly a tough challenge to get to be self-sustainable. Good community isn't found in the big numbers, and decent salary needn't be too.
I think you're going about this wrong and I think this belief is why.
I have very little social media (pretty much just HN). These companies have no real power over your life. Facebook is just a website... no more significant than dig or slashdot. They have no power to force you to do anything. You can leave any time you want.
So the question is, why do people use these services? For the exact opposite of your sentence above: because they ARE built around how people live their lives.
People aren't on LinkedIn just because it exists; they're there to create a network to find work. That's a function that existed before LinkedIn... starting with either your first job or during university; or through friends and family.
Or take WhatsApp, which enables sending small messages. Examples of sending small messages: carrier pigeons; telegrams (average length: 12 characters); walkie-talkies; pagers; SMS... and then more recently: chat apps and Twitter. So the behavior already existed before chat existed. So why did people move to WhatsApp when SMS already existed and was so similar? Because when WhatsApp started, SMS was $0.10/message and WhatsApp was free.
So whatever function you decide to start with, I think you need to understand the underlying reason people use that service... and what the current platform is delivering that the users find valuable. If you stop viewing it as something being shoved down your throat, you'll see all of these platforms are enabling something of value.
Additionally I would caution you against just duplicating something that already exists. What you're really doing is duplicating a specific solution to an already solved problem. And then the question arises: why would would people pay switching costs for no gain? And the answer is they won't.
Many of the disgruntled former users of these platforms--disgruntled because they're deprived of the value the platform was delivering--are exactly the type of users you do not want on your platform. But these are the users that will be open to using your platform, because they have the lowest switching costs.
There can be an opening for a duplicate when a platform (like reddit or twitter) starts destroying some of their value.. and if you're positioned as a prominent alternative at the time that happens, users may start switching over. But it's easier for the existing platform to restore the value they removed than it is for millions of users to switch to your platform. So I'd argue this strategy is essentially the same as buying a lottery ticket... hoping they f up big enough and long enough for you to win.