Show HN: I Built the Anti-Social Network (and Social Media Billionaires Hate It)

[abilafredkb]

I had 3,000 LinkedIn connections and felt completely alone. So I built something that will probably make me zero dollars: a social network that actively prevents you from building a following. Here's what makes this controversial:

Your connections literally expire after 48 hours (yes, really) Zero followers, zero likes, zero feed to doomscroll The algorithm tries its HARDEST to match you with someone NOT from your country No ads. No data mining. No engagement metrics to optimize for.

The nuclear take that will get me roasted: Social media isn't broken because of the algorithm. It's broken because we've gamified human connection. Every platform is optimizing for addiction and engagement, calling it "connection." They've convinced us that 3,000 shallow relationships > 3 deep ones. Eintercon does the opposite. It's anti-growth, anti-retention, anti-engagement. You get matched with ONE person abroad, 48 hours, then they're gone. No building empires. No personal brands. Just... talking to another human. What I'm asking HN:

Am I insane for building an app that intentionally limits growth? Is there even a business model for "authentic connection" when surveillance capitalism pays 100x more? Has anyone else felt completely alienated by having "thousands of connections"?

I know this will get comments saying "this already exists" (it doesn't, not like this) or "no business model = dead" (probably true). But I'm curious if anyone else feels like social media made us less social, not more. Try it: eintercon.com Roast me. Or tell me I'm onto something. Either way, I need to know if this resonates or if I've completely lost the plot.

[al_borland]

Is killing the connection after 48 meant to push people to share alternative contact information? 48 hours seems like it could be fast for this.

It seems that the connection should persist as long as the conversation is alive. Start chatting and keep all active conversations with some kind of 2 way back and forth within the last week. If the conversation dies out, then let the connection expire.

[abilafredkb]

Great question! The 48 hours is actually just the trial period, not a hard cutoff. Think of it like this: you get matched with someone new, and you both have 48 hours to see if there's chemistry. If you're both enjoying the conversation, you can mutually extend it indefinitely. If not, it expires automatically—no awkward ghosting, no guilt. Why 48 hours specifically?

It creates urgency to actually engage (no "I'll reply later" that becomes never) It's long enough for meaningful exchange across time zones It filters out low-effort connections before they clutter your inbox

The alternative would be what you described—keeping conversations alive as long as there's activity. But in practice, we found people don't want 47 half-dead conversations lingering. The explicit "extend or end" decision forces both people to actively choose whether this connection matters. Sharing external contact info? Some users do exchange WhatsApp/Instagram if they really click, but that's not the goal. The goal is to keep quality high by requiring mutual intent to continue. Does that make more sense? Happy to clarify further!

[al_borland]

Yeah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

[beardyw]

I wonder if timezones will work in 48 hours. My experience with 12 hours offset is that a conversation can take a very long time.

[abilafredkb]

You're absolutely right. This is one of the biggest UX challenges we're tackling. The reality: A US-Australia conversation could realistically be 4-6 back-and-forths over 48 hours if you're both responding once per waking cycle. That's why we allow mutual extensions. If the conversation is clearly going somewhere but you just need more time due to timezone lag, both people can extend it. What we're seeing so far:

Users in major timezone offsets (12+ hours) tend to extend more often Async messaging actually works better than expected. People write longer, more thoughtful messages instead of rapid-fire texts The 48-hour timer creates a bit of urgency even across timezones ("I should reply before bed so they wake up to it")

We're also experimenting with:

Giving users a "timezone buffer" notification if their match is 8+ hours offset Allowing one free extension per connection (currently testing this)

You've hit on something real though. Do you think a dynamic timer based on timezone offset would feel more fair? Like 72 hours for 12+ hour gaps? Curious about your take.

[kundi]

How does it compare to other alternatives such as Alternet and Izvir?

[abilafredkb]

I have no idea what these alternatives are