Perhaps it would look like that brief golden age when everyone had a self hosted blog and we subscribed to each other with RSS readers.
I wouldn't know how many deliberately chose not to self-promote in that way, but it is probably far more than those who chose to blog.
I think system architecture is part of the present problem, but it is not at the root. Even during your so-called Golden Age the deeper issue was already manifest, though not yet scaled.
Good news is that the seeds of better social do exist. I'm trying to set up one of them, http://www.reason.so/ which will match people with similar interests into small (3-10 people) group chats with the intention of creating small communities where it's easy to discuss things you find interesting semi-privately (i.e. somewhere between a public Twitter thread and a private group message). By keeping the chats small you also get rid of clickbait, astroturfers and "thought leaders" who only want to build an audience instead of actually interacting with other people.
The biggest problem with setting up a social network like Reason is probably monetarisation. People just aren't ready to pay for social media when Facebook, Clubhouse and co are free.
In addition to that, meetup.com makes its money by charging people who want to setup a group.
It’s E2E encrypted, so the server can’t datamine your posts or meddle with your timeline. Built on Matrix underneath, so building federated communities will be straightforward.
Let me know if you’d like to try it out.
It seems to have that same problem many alternatives have though.
My friends and family aren't on there and there seems to be a lack of a way to at least make some new friends on there.
First, I’m trying really hard to get an Android version ready by the end of the year.
Second, we’re going to be offering some group deals and discounts, so one person can pay to get their whole family / group / crew on the network for an introductory period.
No doubt it will be slow going for a while.
But I think (hope?) that once people get a taste of an easy way to keep in touch, without the platform itself working against you, then it will start to spread organically and pick up steam.
I think the very name "social media" is catching people off guard. It implies something social, which for most people is good and aspirational.
My mother who can barely use Windows knows how to chat with me on Facebook. People use social media to communicate between friends, family, coworkers etc all the time. That's how all of that monetizable data gets generated.
Yes, the purpose of social media is to profit from user-generated content and data, but it still works as intended for 99% of people.
It is notoriously difficult to browse through, responses are sorted in non-intuitive ways, sometimes responses are hidden for no apparent reason, yet people regularly use it to communicate.
When people post status updates or pictures or whatever, they're trying to communicate, how many times have you gotten status or upload notifications from people you haven't talked to in years, but it never showed you your best friend's new baby pictures or something like that?
Twitter, It's designed around a character limit that strictly discourages longform communication. Yet, you get people trying to write blog posts using it, much to the chagrin of many HN commenters, and generally, the quality of most communication suffers greatly on twitter because of the inherent design.
I would argue that it feels like it works, for 99% of people. I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.
But that's effectively the same thing if you can't get users to change networks/platforms, eh?
> I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.
Sure. It's easy-bake oven internet for non-geeks. But they don't care. The cupcakes taste fine (to them.)
Facebook's mission statement.
Whole thing creeped me out.
They're easy to use because the major social media platforms know that reducing friction to use draws people in and keeps them there, while the platform serves their attention up to advertisers. There's even ways that they make it harder to stop using them than to just keep scrolling/refreshing. Dark Patterns abound.
People on social media are generally not communicating with each other, at least not in a meaningful sense. Social media users are sharing things that other people have created to draw attention, and whatever gets the most attention and shares, aka "engagement" sells the most ads, and makes the most money.
I think a lot of people think big social media platforms are actually communication platforms, they're not. They're designed intentionally to be difficult to communicate on.
That the not the purpose of them, it's in the name 'social media' they are the media, you are the social. They are creating media based on the things users post. They're not made to facilitate communication between friends, family, coworkers, etc...
They are designed specifically for users to generate monetizable content and data. They use a veneer of 'connecting the world together' so users will generate content that drives clicks and makes them money.
A true global communication platform would look nothing like the social media we have today. It would be designed around allowing people to communicate easily and freely, it would give you control over who and what you interact with and it would allow you to maintain granular levels of privacy.
Ya know...like other systems designed to facilitate communications...like say the telephone system...