Facebook Rival

Phishfry

Phishfry

Well I see that Facebook finally has some competition.
I once said I would gladly pay for access without my personal info being pimped.
The price seems a tad high at $100 a year but that is on par with Facebooks predecessor, classmates.com from 10 years ago.

I do like keeping up with old classmates.

Anybody try it out yet? My privacy is worth $13 a month.
WT:Social seems like a dumb name though.
They say they are news oriented. I wonder how that compares to Facebook.
I like seeing what my friends in far away places are doing. How they aged and what their family status is.
Didn't care for some prolific people posting every fancy meal they make. That seemed narcissistic.

www.bbc.com

Thousands flock to Wikipedia founder's 'Facebook rival'

Jimmy Wales says his new social network, WT:Social, now has more than 160,000 members.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
I find it interesting how the general internet is little used by Facebook users. Anybody who wants can use any number of other free services - wordpress.com is one - and then all their friends can find them with a quick internet search. We don't need Facebook to connect with old friends and family - just use the Goog or the Duck and you're good to go.

Of course everybody here knows that, but why is it such a secret? I think the answer is that the Internet is a secret. Everybody knows the word, but few know what or where it is. I just talked to an intelligent person who happened to mention that he didn't have a web page - or so he thought. It turns out he had a Google blog (which works very well for him, and he loves it) but he never imagined that to be a web page.

I keep telling people that "the internet belongs to YOU". Nobody believes me. What are people thinking? . . . I'd guess nothing. :)
 
A: If this thing really has 160K users, the probability that you can find random friends on it is minuscule. Facebook has billions of users, and even then, a lot of people I know do not use it. The purpose of Facebook (from the user's point of view) is fundamentally to be a communication channel, between you and friends. This only works if a significant fraction of your friends are on it.

B: Before you think that Jimmy Wales in a nice guy, please read some of the backstory on him. In my opinion he is a complete creep. If he walked into a room, I would walk out. And complain to the hosts that he was invited. Please read about his business dealings, honesty, personal life, and philosophy before using any product he stands to profit from.
 
ralphbsz said:
B: Before you think that Jimmy Wales in a nice guy, please read some of the backstory on him. In my opinion he is a complete creep. If he walked into a room, I would walk out. And complain to the hosts that he was invited. Please read about his business dealings, honesty, personal life, and philosophy before using any product he stands to profit from.
Click to expand...
He seemed ok. One of his pettifoggers was weak and scruple-less. They think they can avoid responsibility, by doing nothing, and can't be blamed or sued, if the community votes or makes decisions.

You have to tell Jimmy Wales himself, for his pettifoggers to do anything about users advocating illegal and predatory acts. It doesn't have to do with me, except I recognize what they're doing is obviously wrong. Then, they finally decide on making one account for pettifoggers to hide behind, so one doesn't get blamed (or become a fall guy) for doing something seemingly right.

Those pettifoggers were basically the higher up admins, that those with advanced privileges who also suggest those things then leave people hanging, said to bring it up to. Hey Jerk, at least talk to those pettifoggers instead of hiding.
 
I agree 160K users is not much. I just have high hopes that someone will knock Zuck off his throne.
So who is the worst of the two evils? Jimmy or Zuck?
I really have no idea about anything bad from Jimmy beside questionable moderation on wikipedia topics.
Overall I think Wikipedia is a great format and surly there will be some bad apples in any org.

To OJ's point non-technical people don't need a website or blog to aggregate personal information.
I think social medial has a place in life. But only when it is a giant bulletin board with active content from real people.
Not corporate shills or phoney stories posing as news.

Facebook from 2007-2010 was a great place. I found out about my 30th high school reunion from it.
I doubt there are 5 out of 300 people from my class that could have created a website for the event.
I think the event section of Facebook is a good feature.
USS LY Spear reunion was another event I would have never attended if it weren't for Facebook.
Shipmates.com used to exist to serve the same purpose but was quickly made irrelevant by Facebook.
A one stop shop.

The system at Facebook with friends lists and privacy levels for access to user data seems like a good idea.
Somewhere they went off the tracks on the road to monetization. API's for advertisers seems like the culprit.
 
Phishfry said:
To OJ's point non-technical people don't need a website or blog to aggregate personal information.
I think social medial has a place in life. But only when it is a giant bulletin board with active content from real people.
Not corporate shills or phoney stories posing as news.
Click to expand...
Sure, but blogs can be configured in different ways. One doesn't need to make it an actual "blog". Forum software is even more configurable for a sharing environment - although that has maintenance issues. In any case, my point is that search engines take care of the search if you are publicly exposed. One can use a personal message if it's important to convey one's birth date or other information which shouldn't be otherwise shared. IRC, and its current proliferation of GUI variants, is one of the best Facebook replacements.
 
My example would be ISP's web space.
Verizon once offered PWS. Personal Web Space for users to host their own websites.
How many Verizon users complained when that was abolished.
Very, very few I would argue. I would like to see the stats on the usage of that free feature.

Most people want some simple way to take a picture and post it for the world to see.
That is where Facebook and its application integration into smart phones has succeeded.
 
Phishfry said:
My example would be ISP's web space.
Verizon once offered PWS. Personal Web Space for users to host their own websites.
How many Verizon users complained when that was abolished.
Very, very few I would argue. I would like to see the stats on the usage of that free feature.

Most people want some simple way to take a picture and post it for the world to see.
That is where Facebook and its application integration into smart phones has succeeded.
Click to expand...

GeoCities made everybody a webmaster with templates you could use to throw together a webpage. I know godaddy still offers that "service". A lot of people were disappointed GeoCities disappeared but there are still other free sites.

Smartphones have just dumbed down the population and fakebook simplified the process at the cost of your freely given away privacy.
 
I don't use a smartphone but I don't blame the pocket computer for the problem.

What do you think our forefathers would have thought about food delivered to your door?
They would think we are the laziest.
.
What about people who buy meat from the grocery store.
Are we dumber because we don't go into the woods and kill our own diner?

How about people who use a washing machine? Geez to lazy too go to the creek and use your washboard?

So what I am saying is, do new fangled gadgets make our life better or worse?
 
Phishfry said:
What do you think our forefathers would have thought about food delivered to your door?
Click to expand...

Wow! Who knew Chinese food was this good!

Phishfry said:
What about people who buy meat from the grocery store.
Are we dumber because we don't go into the woods and kill our own diner?
Click to expand...

I saw a guy buying a treestand to go deer hunting at Walmart yesterday. You probably see the same thing where you live. Not everyone has the place to grow their own food or the inclination to kill it. Going to the store doesn't make you dumber because you need something to eat.

Phishfry said:
How about people who use a washing machine? Geez to lazy too go to the creek and use your washboard?
Click to expand...

I did 5 loads of laundry at the laundromat the other day and hit on a worker while I was there. I don't own a washboard or a washing machine. If I want clean clothes it's either there or the Mississippi and I wouldn't get in that if I was on fire. Too much pollution upriver.

Phishfry said:
So what I am saying is, do new fangled gadgets make our life better or worse
Click to expand...

Depends on the gadget. I don't think e-cigs are making life better for many people these days.

I've never owned a smartphone or had a social media account in the classic sense so it hasn't effected me either way. I would never have learned to write XHTML and CSS or be where I am today if not for GeoCities. Those and other skills I learned there and developed over the years made me a completely different person and the better for it. Though not everyone would agree.
 
I think we can agree that new technology itself is not the danger.
It's how we use or misuse it.

Now 'e-cigs' are just plain stupid in my opinion. Just the volume of smoke that is obtainable is insane.
I just can't imagine what that much smoke does to your lungs.
 
I don't use Facebook. That's sort of a lie. Some number of years ago, I wanted to see a technical video that was on there and that was the reason I signed up. The video, as it turns out, wasn't worth it.

A few years ago, a relative died. At the memorial service, I met a few relatives I didn't know I had. They asked if I was on Facebook and insisted I friend them there. I checked it out and found a whole bunch of friends and relatives. I friended a bunch of them but, after the initial "How you been?!" stuff, it's mostly crickets or drivel and cat pictures (including my dog pictures). A second cousin posts about 15 pictures of her kids activities of the day (I kid you not).

So now I only go to the home page. I don't log in but look to see if the little red icon is on indicating there is a post directed to me. Otherwise I move on. It's almost always a waste of a click--even when the red icon is there.

It's like the salesman who wants to show me something I might want to buy. I always tell them, if I wanted to buy it that I'd be looking for it.

This reminds me to call my brother who invited me, again, for Thanksgiving dinner and warned me they invited you-know-who-and-i-can't-believe-you-did.
 
You don't need facebook or alike to keep friends worth keeping. I don't have facebook, I left whatsapp when facebook bought it (turned to threema). If I want to meet someone I call him and ask him. If he/she's far away I can always send an email and ask "what's up". My 2c.

Personally I wouldn't keep profile there if they pay me $100 a month.
 
Phishfry said:
I think we can agree that new technology itself is not the danger.
It's how we use or misuse it.
Click to expand...
Well, most people simply do not realize/understand where the danger may come from ― because of its obscurity in the new technologies. There are no more stepping switches...

Regarding the FB: I don't open its page in a browser, but since my kids live in other countries and like to use it, I keep in touch with them using net-im/pidgin with purple-facebook plugin. That's the problem: you can't force other people to use this or that method of communication. I'm glad Skype has (almost) died, and I don't have to keep it in my computer/phone/etc to be able to reach certain people anymore.
 
Phishfry said:
So what I am saying is, do new fangled gadgets make our life better or worse?
Click to expand...

That is a really good question. My wife and I were actually debating that just the other day.

The problem I have with sites like Facebook is they capitalize on peoples' personal information which seems to be of low value to persons these days. I find that trend rather disturbing. There was a time people valued their privacy highly, now they're perfectly willing to broadcast their lives to the world. That makes buyers and sellers of advertising very happy, also those wishing to track other people.
 
I try and check in with my Facebook account quarterly. What I have noticed is that a small group of my 'friends' make up a majority of the chatter.
The people posting political memes has gotten out of hand. I can see why they say it is increasing our countries divide.
Faked political jpegs are getting really old too.

What bothers me is the lack of transparency. I think Google and Facebook have good products on their face. It is the backend that is troublesome.
Which brings me full circle. Would you be willing to pay for transparency?
 
Phishfry said:
The price seems a tad high at $100 a year but that is on par with Facebooks predecessor, classmates.com from 10 years ago.

I do like keeping up with old classmates.

Anybody try it out yet? My privacy is worth $13 a month.
Click to expand...


I just had my domain and hosting renewed for another year with GoDaddy and Awardspace (Zetahost in Bulgaria). Private domain registration with full protection cost $50 and hosting was $60 for my 3rd year with them. That works out to be about $9.17 a month by my math. ;)

I'm very happy with the service I receive with my hosting package but don't know how it compares with what you get. I've had a couple free sites there, the only host for a free site I've had that didn't post ads to your site, and liked them well enough to host my domain.

Private registration helps keep INTERPOL off my tail and the protection package keeps people from fiddling with transfers and such. It's an extra $40 or so above regular registration but well worth it to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trihexagonal said:
Private registration helps keep INTERPOL off my tail...
Click to expand...
No, it keeps script kiddies and spammers off your tail. Fundamentally, you will get less annoying e-mail. Anyone who wants to identify you is likely to be able to do so, by looking at what you show or interact on the web site you serve.

If Interpol wants to get you, some police agency will file a subpoena (or the moral equivalent in the correct country) with the hosting or DNS or registration conmpany, and will get the answer. And the intelligence agencies know who you are anyway.

... and the protection package keeps people from fiddling with transfers and such.
Click to expand...
That's correct, and quite valuable. Having your registration stolen is quite a hassle.
 
ralphbsz said:
No, it keeps script kiddies and spammers off your tail.
Click to expand...

Brazilian hit squads and people who don't know what modus operandi means, too. ;)

ralphbsz said:
Anyone who wants to identify you is likely to be able to do so, by looking at what you show or interact on the web site you serve.
Click to expand...

If I was that worried I wouldn't say or have said a lot of things about myself. I not only survived a Cuban hit squad but came out on top.
 
Trihexagonal said:
It's an extra $40 or so above regular registration
Click to expand...
Yea I was just noticing that Hover/TwoCows only charged me 12.99 for my first year but my renewal cost 14.99 a year.
Once they get you locked in they charge you more...
So $5 a month for Linode and $15 a year for hosting. So I am paying $75 a year for my site.
 
I was kind of surprised it cost so much to renew my .org domain. I thought those got a discount.

I know I've never made a penny off ads or anything and am in the red for it, but not complaining. I learned at GeoCities it didn't matter how many search engines or web directories you listed your free site with, it took getting out there and promoting it to get noticed.

A skill I've developed to Talker level over the years and got me to #1, #2 and #5 on a Google search for "FreeBSD desktop tutorial" and #1 and #5 for "FreeBSD desktop how-to".

It's not something that people don't do on Facebook or twitter though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top