The bottom line here is that almost everything has a cost. You can pay with money (App.net) or you can pay with freedom (Facebook / Twitter). Is there a third way besides pure charity?
I was about to say the same thing. I also don't understand some of the direction of the complaint. The people she knows who signed up were male, and that's unfortunate because? Her female friends were not being dicouraged from signing up, were they? I have no idea why the anecdotal self-selection would be bad. Would it be disappointing if most of her readers were female? Or would it be unfortunate if most poeople visiting substance-abuse support communities were substance abusers?
Ok, so it's unfortunate that as far as she knows males signed up. But then, it's also bad that there is a $50 cost to entry. It's a qualitatively bad site (it's all these self-selecting guys), but I'd like it to be easier (dollar-free) to join a site I thought was the wrong direction in social?
If app.net is successful, what would prevent others from creating their own interest-driven sites? It's not as if reddit, flickr, etc. have unified users sharing and seeing everything anyway. People who go to those sites generally spend their time in/with specific groups. Just because "it's open" and there is free access does not ensure that people from disparate groups within those sites interact and share ideas. People in many sites tend to gravitate towards like-minded people or at least similarly-interested people.
Diversity of thought is a great goal, but in practice, people seldom look for people to genuinely question their beliefs.
I'm reading a little between the lines here. But I think this is what her answers would be:
> The people she knows who signed up were male, and that's unfortunate because?
A lack of diversity is a fundamental evil.
> Her female friends were not being di[s]couraged from signing up, were th[e]y?
Females must equal males in all things. Otherwise it's DISCRIMINATION by the GRAND EVIL SEXIST PIG CONSPIRACY.
> Would it be disappointing if most of her readers were female?
No. A mostly-female community is empowering. A mostly-male community is a sexist boys' club. THIS RULE HOLDS REGARDLESS OF ALL FACTS, REASONS, AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
> But then, it's also bad that there is a $50 cost to entry.
CAPITALISM AND MAKING MONEY are evil under all circumstances. In the future, everyone will work for the government, and all will be sweetness and light. Despite the fact that this was tried and failed miserably, as anyone who knows anything about the past 100 years of world history can tell you.
> I'd like it to be easier (dollar-free) to join a site I thought was the wrong direction in social?
The world owes me a handout. Obviously.
> If app.net is successful, what would prevent others from creating their own interest-driven sites?
Ok, so it's unfortunate that as far as she knows males signed up. But then, it's also bad that there is a $50 cost to entry. It's a qualitatively bad site (it's all these self-selecting guys), but I'd like it to be easier (dollar-free) to join a site I thought was the wrong direction in social?
If app.net is successful, what would prevent others from creating their own interest-driven sites? It's not as if reddit, flickr, etc. have unified users sharing and seeing everything anyway. People who go to those sites generally spend their time in/with specific groups. Just because "it's open" and there is free access does not ensure that people from disparate groups within those sites interact and share ideas. People in many sites tend to gravitate towards like-minded people or at least similarly-interested people.
Diversity of thought is a great goal, but in practice, people seldom look for people to genuinely question their beliefs.