News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

sammiej

Re:Ask HN: Would you pay for a privacy-first social platform? on Saturday January 10, 2026 @03:16PM (#46569503)
Thanks for your reply. I hear you, but those solve different problems:

WhatsApp/Telegram groups = messaging (chat interface) Google Photos = photo sharing (no social features) This = social feed (posts with photos/videos, comments, reactions, chronological timeline)

The gap: If I want my family across 3 countries to see updates (like Facebook), but don't trust Meta with the data, what do I use?

WhatsApp groups scroll too fast, Google Photos has no conversation features, Telegram isn't E2E by default.

But if you're saying "the market doesn't care about that gap," that's exactly what I'm trying to validate.

Re:Ask HN: Would you pay for a privacy-first social platform? on Saturday January 10, 2026 @03:15PM (#46569492)
Thanks for your reply. Curious what the feedback was 2 years ago? Was it "wouldn't use it" or "already exists"?

The problem I'm trying to solve is different from group messaging: - WhatsApp/Telegram = messaging (1-1, group chats, calls) - This = social platform (feed of posts, photos/videos, chronological timeline, comments)

Think "Facebook groups but encrypted" not "another messaging app."

But if HN said "no" to that specific framing, that's valuable to know.

Ask HN: Would you pay for a privacy-first social platform?

I'm researching demand for an end-to-end encrypted social platform focused on private groups (family/friends) rather than public feeds.Core thesis: "They don't own you" is becoming a movement. People want: - E2E encryption (platform can't read content) - True deletion (cryptographic, not just "marked as deleted") - Subscription model (no ads, no data mining) - Open source (verifiable...

( Read More... | 10 comments | 4 points | on HN )