Stopping the use of Facebook and transitioning to another method of organizing group events does not cause physical illness or death.

Gambling can be an addiction, but does not result in physical illness or death upon termination. Still, it can be highly addictive. Same goes for Facebook.

You're pigeonholing. Facebook is only part of the tapestry of social media poison.

Honestly, the sooner we can have a real discussion of the pros and cons of using Facebook and not using Facebook while everyone else around you continues, without ridiculous hyperbolic bullshit like "social media poison," the better.

You're right but I still wonder what will ever become of the idea of a "true" online social network.

Why do we have to hand over so much of ourselves in order to obtain social connection as a "side-effect" of the true business of social media operators like Facebook and Google? Are these companies the only way to have meaningful online social networks? I don't think it has to be that way, but I also can't fathom how a non-toxic social network can keep the lights on without selling stuff.

I see the big 4 as robber barons[1]. They see opportunity in millions and billions of dollars. The company doesn't care about the individual.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

Of course they don't care about people. The social network that the members enjoy is merely a side-effect of the true business. Sort of like the fact that a cow pasture is not really about the cows' enjoyment but, when you get down to it, hamburgers. Amazingly most people are still as oblivious to this concept as cows are before becoming hamburgers.

What I am wondering about is the possibility of a social network that is deliberately and intentionally about being JUST a social network and NOT some kind of complex mechanism for market research and exploitation.

I think the obstacle there is momentum and critical mass. Nobody uses askjeeves.com because Google has mindshare.

If you were to build this hypothetical pure social media communication platform we'd still have to find it, it'd have to be funded, maintained, and improved. Even then it's useful only if you can get your network on it.

Money is the root of all evil and will pervade into whatever is next. It's only human nature.

You can see examples of this with https://diasporafoundation.org/ and https://gab.ai/ -> these platforms and ideas exist but they have a raindrop in a bucket of usershare.

I'm not an expert in this field but I think about it a lot. Thanks for discussion, HN.

Maybe we're all thinking about this in a way that's too constrained?

The theoretical dream of cyberspace, back in the 60-80's, before "the web" (as we know it) was that merely being "online" automatically put you in a global community: a place where distance no longer mattered, and where _all_ text is part of one giant hypertext. This was roughly the idea as described by Ted Nelson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson).

I think there's a way for this theoretical concept to be realized without dependence on exploitative commerce-oriented websites, and perhaps, without dependence on websites period. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that will be like in reality.

I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a couple of months now. I really like the idea of an open-source social network, maybe supported in part or in full by crowdfunding via something like Patreon. If the intention is connection rather than profit, you'd mostly just need to cover server/hosting fees. Of course, that's still not a cheap proposition.

But I'd rather have a small network focused on good connections than a large network focused on invading and selling user data, and maybe a smaller network could be managed by user contributions over investments that lead to treating users as the product.

Open source social networks already exist, for example GNU Social and Mastodon which form part of the Fediverse.

I'll look those two up - thanks for the tip!

You're thinking of physical dependency. Addiction is compulsive behavior despite adverse consequences.

Neither does stopping gambling.

Neither does the cessation of many addictive drugs, notably nicotine.

Some people are probably addicted to facebook, but for the vast majority I don't think your comparison is very good. In almost all cases you can switch to something different than facebook.

If all your friends are on Facebook: no, you really can't.

I haven't had a Facebook account for five years. I get by just fine by emailing or texting a friend when I want to get a hold of them.

Yes you can, I have friends whom for various reason don't have a Facebook or stopped using it/deleted it. People will adjust and instead we contact them by mail or phone. Perhaps it's a bit of a annoyance, but you are not kept prisoner.

I often get invited to events through Facebook. Without Facebook, I would miss out on a lot of events.

For this reason I'm basically stuck with Facebook, but I've unfollowed most of my friends, so this reduces the burden to some extent.

Are we talking about friends or acquaintances?

Because if ones friends forget to invite them to events because they are not on FB, then it’s time to find new friends.

While I tend to agree, it's a little like telling someone to just "find a better job"; it's not always so easy. Maybe some people are unfortunate enough to not have real friends, and shallow Facebook connections are all they have.

Even though the shallow connections take up time that could be spent forging more meaningful connections with those around them, not everyone is self-confident enough to go cold-turkey.

Definitely, for some people it’s easier said than done, but I think that’s a very small minority and not your average FB user?

Ask one of your friends to text you if there is an event going on. As an added bonus, you might get some honest interaction with your friend.

Just like you're not caught up in a literal prison when your proverbial student loan debt prison is due every month.

If your friends don't want to expend the effort to communicate with you via email, phone or other, non-Facebook means: they're not really your friends.

Depends on your definition of "friend", for sure!

When it comes to messaging I prefer XMPP with Omemo these days. There is Gajim for PC, Conversations for Android and ChatSecure for Apple.

Of course, many people don't want to change their habits and I think there is no need to push too hard. However, I convinced a friend of mine to try Gajim on PC and to my surprise he sticked with it and installed the Conversations App a few months later on his smartphone.

Of course, the network effect of FB is very real. So overall this anecdote doesn't really change anything. But I think it is import to remind ourselves every once in a while that there are people out there who are willing to change their habits. And some of these people, in turn, influence other people. It's unlikely that you start a trend but I think we should keep trying.

No it's pretty simple.