For awhile I saw the possibility of all our social networks being compartmentalized (note, some possibly obscure and some defunct apps about to be listed). For example, Path, originally limited to 50 friends, could be a place to share thoughts and photos with a core group of people in your life; Notabli could be used for sharing photos of children with grandparents and immediate family; Runkeeper could be a way to stay connected with a group of active friends who shared a common interest; Apple Music (or, its predecessor, Ping) to share music tastes with those who enjoyed the same; and spread this concept out for as many other groups you could imagine. Each network would be relevant, easy to keep up with, and had the simple benefit of being people you knew. But alas, all these had the unfortunate disadvantage of trying to make it in a world where behemoths such as Facebook and Twitter were sucking all the air out of the room. Everyone had to make sharing to these networks the main way to socialize, which consequently made their own ecosystems suffer. So, we never got to truly see what a compartmentalized social environment could have looked like.
I like the concepts you’ve outlined above — I for one hope they come to fruition.
I really enjoyed this insight and thoughtful compilation! I think that there can never be a “good” social media, we either individually take the solutions you have given and create small change within ourselves or we opt out completely, dependant on people’s differing strengths and capabilities. It reminds me of an aspect in psychology called “snowballing” which discusses how when start with a change within the minority, greater influence is properly internalised and then it is more effective in shifting the majority rather than the other way around. Almost like a hierarchical model but starting with a more intimate and less elitist group of people.
Very well laid out, Matt! This should exist.
For awhile I saw the possibility of all our social networks being compartmentalized (note, some possibly obscure and some defunct apps about to be listed). For example, Path, originally limited to 50 friends, could be a place to share thoughts and photos with a core group of people in your life; Notabli could be used for sharing photos of children with grandparents and immediate family; Runkeeper could be a way to stay connected with a group of active friends who shared a common interest; Apple Music (or, its predecessor, Ping) to share music tastes with those who enjoyed the same; and spread this concept out for as many other groups you could imagine. Each network would be relevant, easy to keep up with, and had the simple benefit of being people you knew. But alas, all these had the unfortunate disadvantage of trying to make it in a world where behemoths such as Facebook and Twitter were sucking all the air out of the room. Everyone had to make sharing to these networks the main way to socialize, which consequently made their own ecosystems suffer. So, we never got to truly see what a compartmentalized social environment could have looked like.
I like the concepts you’ve outlined above — I for one hope they come to fruition.
I like this approach too, Jonathan—a sort of federated approach that could allow a lot of distinct social apps with different functions to flourish.
But you’re right—instead of this we have a world where every competitor is playing a zero-sum game, and they’re taking us all down with them.
The next platform should be intrinsically better in some clear ways, and also allow others to flourish within its general framework.
I really enjoyed this insight and thoughtful compilation! I think that there can never be a “good” social media, we either individually take the solutions you have given and create small change within ourselves or we opt out completely, dependant on people’s differing strengths and capabilities. It reminds me of an aspect in psychology called “snowballing” which discusses how when start with a change within the minority, greater influence is properly internalised and then it is more effective in shifting the majority rather than the other way around. Almost like a hierarchical model but starting with a more intimate and less elitist group of people.
Great thought—we need to cultivate better social habits at a smaller level, and perhaps we can scale those up to larger levels over time. I like that!