Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Privacy

Silicon Valley Investors Wants to Fund a 'Good For Society' Facebook Replacement (calacanis.com) 216

Silicon Valley angel investor Jason Calacanis just announced the "Openbook Challenge," a competition to create a replacement for Facebook.

"Over the next three months, 20 finalists will compete for seven $100,000 incubator grants," explains long-time Slashdot reader reifman. "Their goal is to find startups with a sustainable business model e.g. subscriptions, reasonable advertising, cryptocurrency. etc. And they want it to be 'good for society.'"

Jason Calacanis writes: All community and social products on the internet have had their era, from AOL to MySpace, and typically they're not shut down by the government -- they're slowly replaced by better products. So, let's start the process of replacing Facebook... We already have two dozen quality teams cranking on projects and we hope to get to 100...

This is not an idea or business plan competition. We're looking for teams that can actually build a better social network, and we'll be judging teams primarily based upon their ability to execute... Keep in mind, that while ideas really matter, Zuckerberg has shown us, execution matters more.

Calacanis has even created a discussion group for the competition...on Facebook. And his announcement includes a famous quote from Mark Zuckerberg.

"Don't be too proud to copy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Silicon Valley Investors Wants to Fund a 'Good For Society' Facebook Replacement

Comments Filter:
  • The ideal Facebook replacement costs zero bucks.

    • The investors who missed out on the original investment in Facebook want a 'do-over'.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly. Something like Wordpress on steroids, funded by charities, and set up so that anyone can just click a few buttons to set up their "personal page".... And preferably without all the security problems of Wordpress.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No need to thank me. Just use Diaspora*, open, distributed, optionally self hosted Facebook alternative

      • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Sunday April 22, 2018 @08:58AM (#56483053) Homepage

        +1

        If the people proposing this aren't aware that it already exists (kinda) then you have to suspect they're simply after some venture capital.

        • by q4Fry ( 1322209 )

          If the people proposing this aren't aware that it already exists (kinda) then you have to suspect they're simply after some venture capital.

          Not only exists, but multiply so. Diaspora and Mastodon are off the top of my head, and I'm sure that a cursory search would bring up more.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The problem is that it's open, distributed, optionally self hosted. How do the authorities control the content and access on/to such a service? To them, those kind of liberties are not 'Good For Society'. The reasons why seem self evident to me.

      • by b0bby ( 201198 )

        I remember reading about Diaspora several years ago; is it still under active development? When I looked for an android client I found a "native webapp" app, which seemed to have last been updated in 2016. that doesn't seem to indicate a thriving community to me.

  • If there is no money to be made, then it should be sponsored by the state. Computers do consume energy after all. And we know that giving full control to the state just put more ties into three letters agencies. Another service would be e-mail. I do not know what is worse: e-mail read by Google or e-mail read by the NSA/CIA/others without any warrants.
    • If there is no money to be made, then it should be sponsored by the state.

      A bit like the one in China, then?

    • I do not know what is worse: e-mail read by Google or e-mail read by the NSA/CIA/others without any warrants.

      At least they got you covered either way.

    • I do not know what is worse: e-mail read by Google or e-mail read by the NSA/CIA/others without any warrants.

      Why would you assume that's it's either one or the other? I'm fairly convinced today your Google mail is read by both Google AND the three letters. A state-run e-mail service would at least eliminate Google from the list of peeping Toms.
      Maybe the USPS could provide the service - the legislation that regulates paper mail, in regards to tampering, stealing, and the legal mechanisms could be extended to e-mail or other electronic communication.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The good replacement for a bad thing is the absence of the bad thing.

  • Imagine Silicon Valley writing a "Good For Society" US Constitution, and whether it would have anything resembling the 1st or 2nd (or 4th or 5th) amendments . . .
    • by tsa ( 15680 )

      A constitution without a 2nd amendment would be nice.

      • The Second Amendment is there to defend the First. If they fall, then the Fourth and the Fifth fall shortly thereafter. And then the dark times.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tempmpi ( 233132 )

          The Second Amendment is there to defend the First. If they fall, then the Fourth and the Fifth fall shortly thereafter. And then the dark times.

          It's easy to see that this is not true. Plenty of European states without something comparable to the 2nd amendment, but with constitutional rules comparable to 1th, 4th and 5th Amendment.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            That's because America has been guaranteeing their security for free for 75 years. What has long enabled that free world to exist is the post-WWII American security over watch which allowed countries of all sizes to escape fear. The Americans outlawed war among the participating members of the international system, and for the first time in world history imposed security upon the global commons so that anyone could purchase any resource from anywhere as well as export any product (most notably to the open,

            • The trouble is you say this:

              That's because America has been guaranteeing their security for free for 75 years. What has long enabled that free world to exist is the post-WWII American security over watch which allowed countries of all sizes to escape fear.

              Followed by this:

              And we get precisely zero thanks for this, and vile mistreatment.

              Perhaps you are telling someone living in a country where the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of a left wing democracy with an American allied brutal dictatorship that Ameri

              • I'm sure the Vietnamese wold like to hear your thoughts on how American guaranteed their security too!

                june 2015: "This week, the United States and Vietnam deepened their defense ties during a three-day trip by U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to the Southeast Asian state. Most notably, Carter and his counterpart, Vietnamese Defense Minister Phung Quang Thanh, inked a Joint Vision Statement on Defense Relations. The statement itself, which comes as both sides celebrate the 20th anniversary of the normalization of their ties, is not wholly new. It builds on a 2011 memorandum of understanding ..."
                https:// [thediplomat.com]

                • So the Vietnam war didn't happen and all the people still alive who know family and freinds who were killed or maimed or were themselves maimes should be thanking the USA for security?

                  Ain't going to happen. But sure, keep acting confused about why not everyone thinks the US is the bestest, because in your mind there can be no circumstances under which someone doesn't like what you have done.

                  • by drnb ( 2434720 )
                    And yet Vietnam is welcoming US tourism, US trade, US defense cooperation, etc ... deny it all you want but the evidence proves you wrong.
                    • Yes?

                      Tell me do you or do you not want to nuderstand why many people don't like America? If you don't that's fine by me.

                    • by drnb ( 2434720 )
                      I'm interested in what the US does well and does badly but you are apparently a poor source of info on the topic. In your ill-informed harangue you offered Vietnam as an example. I corrected you with the facts. The facts that Vietnam recently celebrated the 20 year old normalization of relations with the US and that it is strengthening its defense and other ties with the US. I could have similarly debunked various other claims you made but this one example was sufficient to demonstrate to other readers you
                    • I'm interested in what the US does well and does badly but you are apparently a poor source of info on the topic. In your ill-informed harangue you offered Vietnam as an example. I corrected you with the facts.

                      No, you didn't. American killed a lot of people in Vietnam. The fact they've managed to establish reasonable diplimatic relations with the government there doesn't mean that there are not plenty of individuals who strongly dislike the USA for what it did.

                      For fucks sake there are plenty of Nam vets is

            • LOL, considering that part of that agreement was that the USD was used as a reserve currency, thereby guaranteeing the US endless supplies of debt, which contrary to popular belief does not really need to be paid back as long as the status quo is retained, which is what US policy is all about.

              Seriously, you must have rocks in your head if you think the US did all of this out of altruism. Next, you will be saying that the US sent soldiers to Europe ww1 & 2 out of your love of fellow man, rather than that

            • 75 years ago americans were heroes freeing the world.
              Protecting us for free, ha ha ha.

              Everybody is paying the price for the american behaviour on the planet. Increased terrorism in peaceful europe. Global warming. Destruction of cultures, because you think you have a god given right to put your fast food companies everywhere.

              Sorry, you might feel insulted, single americans are always nice, after all only the nice ones leave their country. As a nation you are a menace to the planet and mankind.

              Slowly South A

              • See what I mean? Nothing but vile abuse. This is the thanks we get for giving Europeans peace for 75 years and enabling them to spend their money on a welfare state instead of wasting it on defending themselves.
              • Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

                Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

              • There's no point in arguing with DNS-and BIND, he's one of those Americans encountered on Slashdot sometimes.
                He has absolutely no knowledge of the outside world, the tiny bit of history he knows about comes from the history channel and he's always right.
                If you wrestle with a pig you both get filthy, but the pig loves it.
                • Haha,
                  The pig analogy I heared in software seminars, too. Same like 'arguing with an asshole', in the end they drag you down on their niveau and beat you by experience ...

            • by drnb ( 2434720 )

              And we get precisely zero thanks for this, and vile mistreatment.

              Odd, when traveling in Europe I have been treated quite well. I take a few minutes to learn four words in the local language -- "hello", "please", "thank you", "bath room" -- and things go remarkable well. Usually after my "hello" in the local language the clerk/host/waiter begins talking in English. Where they cannot speak English a few English words and some pointing usually manages, and the local "please" and "thank you" among the few English words and pointing seems to keep things relaxed and pleasant.

              • So, why do you think that Americans need to pretend to be Canadians in Europe? What caused that phenomenon?
                • by drnb ( 2434720 )

                  So, why do you think that Americans need to pretend to be Canadians in Europe? What caused that phenomenon?

                  Of the dozens of Americans I know that traveled in Europe none pretended to be Canadian, or felt a need to. Perhaps you confuse phenomenon with urban myth?

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Europe doesn't even have freedom of speech anymore. If you live in the UK say something negative about muslims publicly. You will get a visit from police.

          • The Second Amendment is there to defend the First. If they fall, then the Fourth and the Fifth fall shortly thereafter. And then the dark times.

            It's easy to see that this is not true. Plenty of European states without something comparable to the 2nd amendment, but with constitutional rules comparable to 1th, 4th and 5th Amendment.

            And other European states (ex Switzerland) show that civilian access to firearms, even semiautomatic firearms, is not a problem. Of course criminal and mental background checks, safety training, and secure storage help.

            • And other European states (ex Switzerland) show that civilian access to firearms, even semiautomatic firearms, is not a problem.

              Semiautomatic? The Swiss militia (basically, everyone, though I think they're sexist enough to not include their women) requires members to keep FULLY automatic weapons, plus lots of ammo for same, on hand.

              • by drnb ( 2434720 )

                And other European states (ex Switzerland) show that civilian access to firearms, even semiautomatic firearms, is not a problem.

                Semiautomatic? The Swiss militia (basically, everyone, though I think they're sexist enough to not include their women) requires members to keep FULLY automatic weapons, plus lots of ammo for same, on hand.

                I believe keeping military ammo at home is no longer the case, except for highly specialized personnel. Keeping the military weapon itself at a local armory might now be an option for many, not sure on this one though.

                In any case I am not referring to a reservist's issued weapon. I am referring to what a civilian may personally own. I believe a civilian may own weapons that would be banned in US jurisdictions like California.

          • Not to mention the 4th is slowly and steadily eroding in the US and the 2nd is not helping at all.

          • by bongey ( 974911 )
            Bullshit the majority of European countries DO NOT have free speech. All the countries listed in the article DO NOT have free speech and have passed laws making it illegal to offend someone.
            The EU is just ass backwards on free speech, it is hilarious that they also try to claim some kind of historical significance related to free speech, when the US had free speech, the majority of the countries were still ruled by monarchs, aka dictators.
          • Like the UK that just convicted someone [bbc.co.uk] of hate speech for rap lyrics from a Snap Dogg song she posted on Instagram to pay tribute to a boy who died in a car crash?
        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by Joce640k ( 829181 )

          The Second Amendment is there to defend the First.

          That might have worked when all the government had was muskets, same as the people.

          Now it's not so equally balanced. I invite all the members of the NRA to try and take Washington. It'll be fun to watch.

          • http://archive.is/hnfJQ [archive.is]

            The United States Government has extensively studied the concept of second American Civil War (along the assumption that it will be left versus right. HMM. I WONDER WHY THEY MIGHT *POSSIBLY* DO THAT.)

            Their conclusion is as follows: They don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. The moment civil war is declared, the government loses. No scenario or outcome ends in their success. Period. It's just a matter of how long it takes.

            http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an- [monsterhunternation.com]

            • That analysis does not seem well supported by history. It is certainly not the lesson of the American Civil War. I'm afraid that the Confederacy tried to secede, the existing "Union" treated it as an illegal rebellion, and the Confederacy lost for a long list of reasons.

              The "armed the teachers" article of your second post also does not seem well founded. It does not even acknowledge possibility of accidental shooting by those teachers, or of theft of the firearms on school grounds, especially at the poores

              • That analysis does not seem well supported by history. It is certainly not the lesson of the American Civil War. I'm afraid that the Confederacy tried to secede, the existing "Union" treated it as an illegal rebellion, and the Confederacy lost for a long list of reasons.

                The Confederacy lost for basically just one reason: It was underequipped. It also didn't hurt that The North got help from Canada [wikipedia.org]. There was help for the North to the north, and no help for the South to the south.

            • Clearly a two year old post from /r/conspiracy with no supporting proof or citations is a 100% unassailable source for the truth.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by HGG ( 176028 )

          At best, this is an historical sidebar. At worst, a ploy to take us off topic. I'll respond once and then drop out.

          I agree the 2nd Amendment was there originally to protect the others, or worst case it was "the reset button on the constitution". Reading the letters and essays by Federalists and Anti-Federalists makes clear this was the intent. Military technology at the time made it sensible.

          However, successful rebellion means "We won", not "We killed a lot of people and then we were killed".

          • Its not as simple as you suggest, the civilian vs military scenario actually a bit naive. If things were to degenerate to large scale rebellion various members of the military would likely be as conflicted as civilians. Civilian vs military unlikely, more likely civilian and military of faction A vs civilian and military of faction B. We have two example of this in US history, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. In one the legacy power lost, in the other the legacy power won. Conclusions on the propose
        • The Second Amendment is there to defend the First.

          Really?

          Any idea why it didn't work?

        • That might make some sense if citizens were able to purchase F18's, Guided missile destroyers, B52s and other fun things. Trying to defend agains the American military with a bump stock and and AR-15 seems a bit pointless.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      First Law of Social Benefit: The amount of noise an individual makes about "The Good of Society" will be in inverse proportion to the amount of good that individual contributes to society themselves.

  • But his approach doesn't really make a business. He intends to change social media from a website and a vendor who sells your info to advertisers, to a peer-to-peer protocol that our devices implement to propagate what we want to tell our friends, kind of like a modern-day NNTP with hard crypto privacy controls.

    -jcr

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday April 22, 2018 @07:08AM (#56482691)

    - Openbook will run out of money (yes, it costs money to run servers for hundreds of millions of users)
    - Openbook will sell ads to fund themselves
    - Openbook will realize it's even more profitable to collect data and sell it to the highest bidder
    - Openbook will get a "think of the children" or "Uuh! Terrorism!" injunction from some court or governmental agency, and will share their data with them
    - Openbook = Facebook

    • Unlikely, as with SJW enforcement built in from the ground up, it's going to end up banning most users and will be a far left echo chamber.
      • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Sunday April 22, 2018 @09:26AM (#56483149)

        No need to worry. Jason Calacanis is a publicity whore and little more than a con artist.

        I've been to one of his hackathons before. They're huge. I'll give him that. He promises huge prizes from his own (supposed) fund, but then if you read the fine print, he reserves the rights not to offer any such prize to the winners if they don't meet his (unspecified) criteria. Plus in addition to that, should he select you, you have to give him a part of your future company in exchange for the prize money. No thank you, Jason. If you do go to his hackathons, make sure that the sponsors (other than him) are offering decent prizes. Do not believe in the BS he personally tries to sell you. If you represent a company interested in sponsoring a hackathon, my suggestion is that you sponsor other hackathons than his.

        The event I was at ran out of food super quickly. Jason Calacanis begrudgingly ordered more pizza, but only after participants complained on Twitter that the event had no food. But you had to write something nice about him on Twitter and you had to show them your comment on your phone before you could get your slice of pizza. I kid you not. That's the kind of maturity you're dealing with when you're dealing with this guy.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      - Openbook will run out of money (yes, it costs money to run servers for hundreds of millions of users)

      Well this is a crucial question, how much money to stay afloat and could you get that through some other means assuming this is driven by an idealistic non-profit organization. For example if you could manage to create some kind of "meta-social media" system with plug-and-play providers where you don't actually have to re-invent and host all of Facebook. So if you like want to chat with someone it's like "Chat on Skype" "Chat on Discord" "Chat on Facebook Messenger" etc. based on compatible systems and pref

    • - Openbook will run out of money (yes, it costs money to run servers for hundreds of millions of users)

      Part of the challenge is coming up with a sustainable business model. Nobody is pretending this is going to be free and cost nothing to run.

  • Fuck crypto currencies, or to be more exact, fuck crypto-currencies that set the difficulty rate so that huge amounts of energy has to be wasted in order to "mine" the currency - that just isn't necessary.

  • by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Sunday April 22, 2018 @07:21AM (#56482721)
    and accountability to users and all the other things Facebook is screwing up. Or more accurately anger that trump supposedly benefited finally got people to care about all these things, when they couldn't have given a rat's arse that their electronic lives were being bought and sold six ways from sunday just a few months prior. You got to give him credit for this amazing awakening.
    • and accountability to users and all the other things Facebook is screwing up. Or more accurately anger that trump supposedly benefited finally got people to care about all these things, when they couldn't have given a rat's arse that their electronic lives were being bought and sold six ways from sunday just a few months prior. You got to give him credit for this amazing awakening.

      Just like special prosecutors were just peachy as long as they were going after Republicans, but when they started going after Democrats too, well, maybe we should rethink this ... Things seem great until they turn around and start biting YOU on the ass.

    • Even funnier is how Obama was praised for his shrewd use of social media. The hypocrisy is palpable. If the left likes the candidate, all is well and the person is a genius. If not, how dare they use the tools available to win.

      We saw the same with Bill Clinton. Everyone excuses (or used to) his treatment of Monica Lewinsky. She was an employee/intern. The apologists would say "it's just sex." But Trump' s extramarital relationships are somehow disqualifiers for being President.

      These are double standards. I

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22, 2018 @07:21AM (#56482725)

    I don't know if its willful or blind idiocy, but everything humans have created has been used for evil by someone. The more detached from others they are, the worse it has gotten. Facebook got huge and couldn't see the trees for the forest. Whatever any of these people come up with... will eventually be sold to a corporation that won't see the users as anything but a profit center and begin to exploit it.

    Maybe next time instead of our data, its our computer's data. Maybes it not our browsing habits, but our usage habits. They'll try to abstract and wind up right back in the exact same place.

    Because the fastest way to grow is to give your product away, and the fastest way to profit is to throw your morals out the window.

    Facebook got huge the same way Google got huge... by creating a lure to get your eyes on ads, then selling you to advertisers. The only huge corporation that gives it away and stays free is Twitter, and they are on the auction block to anyone who can figure out how to monetize them (hint, it will be ads).

    The entire point of social media is attention. YOUR attention. To keep your eyes glued to a screen and show you ads. That is ALL it is for. Yes you get benefits from it, if you didn't, you would not stay and see those ads, and the platform would die like so many others. The idea of making a social network that somehow avoids this forever and ever is just an ignorant rant from someone who doesn't understand how business works. Users will not pay subscription fees to join a social network, not when they can get it somewhere else for free. Oh they are running from Facebook in droves you say? And ask them where they are going, or who they are still using. Google +, Tumblr, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. These companies are no different, they just have yet to get caught doing the same shit Facebook was caught doing. And it is inevitable they will be caught at it. And the users will flock to the next free thing because being social SHOULD be free... but as long as hardware and software on a centralized platform is required, it never will be.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seriously people can't shoot themselves in the foot if you don't give them a loaded gun to do it with

  • I have no issues at all with Facebook keeping data on me. To expect less online is foolish. If you want an experiment get a script for a diabetic meter. Your doctor will swear he never lets out information as will almost all drug stores. But within 24 hours the phone calls will start offering you diabetic supplies. I get at least one call a day from companies offering me supposedly better diabetic supplies. Sometimes i get three in one day. Everyone sells data. You can bet when you buy groceries tha
  • What was cool about facebook is that it connected college students to each other. I was on facebook because all of my friends were on it. But later facebook opened to the greater public, globally, and then I saw a friend request in 2012 from an aunt and cousins I haven't spoken to in 15 years (and didn't wish to do it again, really) I decided that the only way to deny this request "gracefully" is simply to leave facebook. And I haven't missed it since then.

  • I would suspect a few patents might get in the way...

  • Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) on Sunday April 22, 2018 @08:59AM (#56483055)

    Silicon Valley Investors want to capitalize on the current wave of hate for Facebook to create a replacement that will make a lot of money.

    Also, we should all trust that the investors will be happy with small returns on their investment and won't make demands later on which would force the replacement to perform the same Orwellian profit-seeking behavior that Facebook is hated for.

  • As others have noted, it costs money to run servers, apply patches, and man help desks. Any attempt at getting someone else to pay (sponsors, states, ads) leads right back to trouble. To be trusted, it will have to be fully paid by user-fees, iron-clad no-commercialization, and have user voting rights on changes to the bylaws.

    So, how much would it cost? Given community-supported OSS software, cloud servers, and volunteer help communities, it wouldn't take much per person "at scale". If you assum

  • Internet sites are at least in some part responsible for the divisions within society increasing. The reason is simple enough, when you visit the site, it immediately tries to learn what you like and give your more of it.

    The idea is innocuous enough, they simply want to increase engagement between the user and the site. The result is that the user is quickly exposed only to those things that the site thinks are of interest to you.

    It is quite is easy to create an experiment and see for yourself. Clear your c

  • They will have to operate in a capitalistic society and such a "society" will favor NOT ALL, but only a part of it, as seen right now.

    Same goes for other social structures communistic totalitarian, monarchy, plutocracy and what else there is. Seems some countries in northern Europe are doing somewhat better, Norway, Sweden, where social well-being has been found to improve when the spread between wealth and income between individual shrinks.

    So - let's wait a couple of centuries and see how this pans out, if
  • How about just funding some useful FOSS project for an open standard mesh-networked E-Mail/Usenet replacement with proper FOSS clients for all major OSes including Linux and BSD, to get the opinion leaders (us) on board. That would rid us of Facebook and other product along those lines.

    But I guess that would involve actcual investment and provide actual results in short time, rather than just getting some PR with an inflated press release.

  • by ThomasBHardy ( 827616 ) on Sunday April 22, 2018 @11:17AM (#56483641)

    First, this is a reactionary action. If someone wanted to supplant Facebook during the height of social unrest about it, they would have needed to start several the development years ago.

    Second, what makes Facebook attractive to most is the critical mass of users. It's the ubiquity that if you use it, it's the most likely venue to find your friends also on it. I can shift and try any number of new social networks, but if the people i want to reach are not there, it's a non-starter.

    Third, social site success is achieved via a mixture of timing, fantastical luck and hitting the sweet spot of user interest. Creating a Facebook alternative is comparatively easy. Achieving success is surprisingly difficult.

    Forth, balkanization of the social media market won't help anyone achieve critical mass. Launching 7 efforts at supplanting Facebook seems like a good idea. "Surely one of them will be successful". But in reality the more there are, the more fragmented the audience becomes, making it even more difficult for one of them to achieve dominant success.

  • To turn a profit, by definition you must take more than you produce. So either Openbook will be a premium social networking site for the privacy-aware that takes your money instead of your privacy (cryptocurrency is just a hyper-inefficient and criminal-friendly form of money) effectively making them a charity-supported operation, or the best they could hope for is something approaching "neutral."

  • We have gone through a few social networking tools and it turns out the most popular one is pretty simple. People don't want to jump through loads of hoops to contact friends. Why do you think people give up privacy? Because it enables convenience! Make it worthy and unfriendly, like Linux, and it won't be adopted ;)
  • Experienced technologists in crypto needed to implement beyond the look book UI. You are A+ team player. You work in small teams of three. You are a developer who ships. You have supported crypto in production. Secrets, you know how to keep...small.

    Open to springboard schemes

    Have the next month to give, the next decade open

  • That was MySpace, before they prevented users from using the search/browse/filter functionality to find exactly who they wanted to interact with by interests, demographics, job networking, etc. Facebook bought and killed that by locking down all the features then auctioned it off after it lost the userbase and wasn't a threat. They want to be the ones controlling Facebook.
  • So the organisation can invest in one guy for part of a year, provided the founders don't get any of it. Essentially they expect that the replacement is somehow under way and mostly funded through other means - this is meant as a tiny little top-up.

  • It cant be tied to wall street/stocks at all in order to be a site that cares about what its users want. Google,FB are 2 prime examples of what happens to a company after they sell their ass to wallstreet and its money.
  • Because the ideal replacement is going to be zero cost and zero profit.

    It's time for "silicon valley investors" to step aside and let grassroots developers solve this problem.

  • ...tells us all we need to know about how this will work out.

  • Give us something above and beyond what FB can even conceive of.... Here are some of my nutty ideas. :P A VR room where you can meet your friends as if they are really there. Lets do something more than just play games... let us search for habitable planets together... let us code together if we like. Make it so that when folks learn things unintentionally even. Augmented Reality get the folks to go outside. People love free... you will need to start a revenue stream there needs to be another brilliant
  • Seems like a product without a market. He seems to be taking advantage of the current headlines to bring in investor money - but he doesn't need to produce anything.

    When (never) complete he'll dump it and move to the next big headline generator.

    The idea that Silicon Valley Tech can solve all of our problems is a meme, a TV show, and also in recent headlines regarding "tech people being out of touch."

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...