The thing is: people don't want limited reach. Why would anyone sign up for a network that limits everything they say to be visible to less than a dozen people? What's the incentive? With numbers like that I could just go outside.
So many "Let's solve a problem about social networks" ideas turn out to be "let's remove or limit the reason people use social networks in the first place"! The last one I saw -- also posted here on HN -- wanted to replace LinkedIn with a network that only allowed you to connect with people via their email addresses. So..... it was email.
(Of course, to be fair I thought the same thing when Twitter was introduced. "Why would anyone want to limit themselves to 160 characters?" I thought. So hey, who knows, maybe your group text simulator really is the next big thing)
What piece of technology do you use that wasn't pitched like this: Like product but differentiating feature.
Reach is the fundamental flaw from both operational and social standpoints. It makes the world worse.
We regulate heroin for the same reason. Although this argument makes me a bit of a hypocrite because I do believe all drugs should be legal and regulated. I'm not entirely sure which opinion will hold after I reconcile this conflict.
Well, sure, but this is "like product but minus the thing that makes product compelling.
If you want people to use a service, you have to give them a reason to use it -- "because it's good for you" isn't exactly going to fill your onboarding funnel, however true it might be.
An understanding of negativity requires an understanding of positivity. To shift the paradigm, one must offer a more fulfilling alternative. A rewarding experience would highlight the disadvantages inherent to the current paradigm.
A net-positive implementation would be the catalyst for mass migration.
"To shift the paradigm, one must offer a more fulfilling alternative. A rewarding experience would highlight the disadvantages inherent to the current paradigm."
Yep, that's what I'm talking about. What's the "more fulfilling alternative" in a social network that won't let you talk to people?
The thing is: people don't want limited reach. Why would anyone sign up for a network that limits everything they say to be visible to less than a dozen people? What's the incentive? With numbers like that I could just go outside.
So many "Let's solve a problem about social networks" ideas turn out to be "let's remove or limit the reason people use social networks in the first place"! The last one I saw -- also posted here on HN -- wanted to replace LinkedIn with a network that only allowed you to connect with people via their email addresses. So..... it was email.
(Of course, to be fair I thought the same thing when Twitter was introduced. "Why would anyone want to limit themselves to 160 characters?" I thought. So hey, who knows, maybe your group text simulator really is the next big thing)