undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjoebadmo14y ago0 comments

I think the answer in a post-FB/Twitter decentralized/distributed social network world is to have transient, easily spun-up and spun-down social networks that you could think of as places.

So, for work friends, I'd make (or join) a social network called WorkBuddies, and I'd have a different one for each context. But you'd take your identity with you, and you'd own your own canonical social graph independent of the people in each network.

0 comments

czph14y ago

I have also got the same problem within FB: Most of my friends don't care about tech/startups so I'm hesitant e.g. about commenting on Techcrunch.

Your approach sounds interesting, and it corresponds well with how you take on different personalities in different settings in real life.

Do you know of that is what Diaspora is trying to do?

joebadmoOP14y ago

I think they're doing something functionally similar, which is basically contact list management into groups. They call it "Aspects" iirc.

I think the problem with that is that it creates weirdly asynchronous or non-cohesive groups. I.e. if I have a list called work friends, it's not necessarily the same as your list called work friends, and the stuff I share to my list doesn't go to the same set of people.

In the "Places" paradigm, the groups would be more canonical and autonomous and transparent to the people in the group.

macgirvin14y ago

But my work friends aren't your work friends. Our friend circles might overlap but they aren't the exact same. So why should you be posting to my work friends group? Don't get me wrong - I think you have an interesting concept here, I'm just trying to understand it better. (I wrote Friendika, which is kind of like Diaspora but a bit more capable - I could probably make something like this happen.).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse