[realpeopleio]

"we must devise new business models and structural incentives that aren’t rooted in manipulation and coercion...In the short-term, that might be achieved by turning to basic subscription services, by paying for the things we use."

That's why we made RealPeople.io (https://realpeople.io) have no ads at all. Users pay to use, and there's no AI, no sharing your data. Rather than trying to just convince users to take our word for it, we just built it into our business model. Our financial incentives align with keeping user data private. And since we don't get paid based on how many pages the user views or how long the user is on the system, there's no financial incentive to getting the user addicted.

[jasode]

>And since we don't get paid based on how many pages the user views or how long the user is on the system, there's no financial incentive to getting the user addicted.

Arguably, most of Facebook's addiction is the existence of virtually all their friends on the network.

Your $9/year cost is a lavish amount of money that exceeds the measly $1/year that 70% don't want to pay.[1] Why don't people want to pay 8 cents a month to avoid ads?!? That's a good question! Whatever the answer is, it affects how an alternative social network can grow and/or financially sustain itself.

If most of the people aren't in a $9/year network, then yes, it won't be addictive. The Google+ social network has targeted ads and yet it's not addictive -- because it's missing the network effect of having "everybody" on it.

Have you considered realistic human incentives in your economic model?

[1] https://www.tune.com/blog/mobile-ads-70-of-smartphone-owners...

[jakecopp]

I wonder about that figure of 70% of people not wanting to pay $1/year to block ads.

Everyone who wants to block ads uses an ad blocker. Those who don't care about ads don't bother to install one or ask their friends/family to install one.

Therefore nobody wants to pay to block ads!

[lhorie]

One could argue that LinkedIn has everybody on it (at least insofar as you are a working white collar adult), but it's not addictive either.

[jasode]

Many analysts don't classify Linkedin as "social" network. The unit of activity on that website is very "transactional". The transactions are "finding a new job". Transactions are common activities for people that don't already know each other -- which is a common scenario for job seekers and job hirers. They "connect" because of a curriculum vitae and not because of a previous In-Real-Life meeting in a school classroom or a family relationship. (Yes, there are "endorsements" which have some aspects of "social".)

Real social networks like Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat are not as transactional. The unit of activity is "ambient awareness" among people who already know each other. There is a human desire to "know what's going on with my friends" and also its counterpart of "let my friends know whats going on with me". This includes use cases such as grandmothers seeing a new posting of photos of the grandkids, and people sending trivialities such as photos of what they're eating for breakfast to their friends, and groups coordinating a shared calendar for a weekend party.

So yes, if you made an "alternative Facebook" that disallowed all the fun things that make it a "social" network such as photos, party events, etc, you will -- by definition -- create a "boring" network that nobody is addicted to. However, that type of limited network doesn't seem to be the "Facebook alternative" most people are seriously discussing.

[lhorie]

I think the social aspect isn't necessary for addictiveness. I can coordinate an event or meeting via WhatsApp or SMS or even snail mail (weddings), but there's nothing intrinsically addictive about that. To put it in your words, these are "transactional" activities towards an offline goal.

The way I think of it is that there are two mechanisms that make Facebook addictive:

The first is voyeurism. We can see similar impulsive behavior when we think things like tabloids and gossip, as well as the psychology of clickbait (e.g. "you won't believe what this local mom did"). People are just naturally curious to know what's going on with other people.

The second mechanism is validation. We can see similar dynamics with how youtubers track "success" and "progress". Twitter presences basically operate on a similar principle. Instagram is another example where people feel compelled to share somewhat artificialized "slice-of-life" photography to audiences that may or may not be their circle of friends. There's karma in HN/reddit/stack overflow, etc and stars in github. In Facebook, it's "likes". The common factor is that people like seeing a little number go up in response to some activity and are compelled to re-engage in said activity due to the positive reinforcement.

So I'd argue that an alternative to Facebook already exists - in the form of Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, clickbait farms, messaging apps, etc. The only stronghold I see left for Facebook is that it's the default place to broadcast random things that don't fit into any other platform (i.e. what's going on with who), and even that is eroding with the whole aunt-and-college-buddies-in-the-same-network-awkwardness thing. The only other thing going for Facebook is that it's pretty much the only platform that enables chain mail sort of stuff (you know, that uncle that is always posting political articles or alternative medicine things, or inspirational quotes or whatever) since it sorta automatically gives people an audience to broadcast to (for the validation aspect).

[jasode]

>To put it in your words, these are "transactional" activities towards an offline goal.

I wasn't using "transactional" in a that loose of a sense so it can apply to nearly everthing. I was thinking of "transactions" in a very money-oriented way. To start a "job search" is to interact with others where "money" defines the relationship ("I want to be paid $$.") That's what LinkedIn is built on. (Yes, money is a crass subject but that's ok because we're on LinkedIn!) Even if an employee and employer become "real friends" later instead of just economic actors in a business transaction, the undertone of the website is still a financial transaction. By its nature, it's going to be a "boring" website.

Facebook ... or "TheFacebook.com" in 2004... was built on students who knew each other. Before it had ads or corporate media inserted into the newsfeed, students were entranced by the "voyeurism" and likewise, the need to express themselves which then feeds the voyeurism of others. The undertone was non-business and non-money things like "mating rituals" and later expanded to friends & family updates like "photos".

Twitter and Reddit don't replace that. Reddit uses handles instead of real names. Both Twitter & Reddit have their own set of addictive attractions. Messaging apps like WhatsApp don't have a "news feed" which many Facebook users like. Instagram and Snapchat are probably the closest substitutes for Facebook for non-text type of sharing.

Many people want the utility provided by Facebook; they just don't want the targeted ads and privacy leaks. Therefore, a 1-to-1 replacement for Facebook accurately captures the (yet-to-be-invented?) alternative they want.

[dreamfactored]

Linkedin is addictive for a lot of people in sales and business.

[pnutjam]

http://www.mewe.com is free, and built around privacy.

[can3p]

Is it possible to see any blog or real page without signing up? And is there an api to read/write/manage blog?