We Should Replace Facebook With Personal Websites (vice.com) 310
Jason Koebler from Motherboard argues "we should replace Facebook with personal websites." An anonymous reader shares the report: As a freshman in high school, in the year of our lord 2002, I made a website called "Jason's Site." While a website named after myself and devoted to updates about my own life was unspeakably vain for the time, it was also quite forward looking: The site has a news feed, an "about me" page, and an email mailing list for people to receive updates. I intended for it to be funded by reader donations. It had a section for Flash videos and photos, a guestbook, and a "friends" page that was literally a list of my friends. It had an ill-advised but nonetheless prescient "hot or not" section that featured photos of my friends and acquaintances and predated both Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg's original idea for the social network, called "FaceMash." I updated the site regularly and obsessively for about three months, and then never returned to it. The site was embarrassing then and is embarrassing now, but abandoning it was a terrible mistake.
Facebook gets a lot of credit for "disrupting" social media and for turning MySpace into a worthless piece of garbage, but millions upon millions of teenagers and young adults were already sharing every aspect of their lives on other social networks, and on their own websites. Facebook had the good fortune of being new, slightly different, and exclusive. It was even luckier to come to power shortly before the rise of the smartphone. I guess what I'm saying is that Facebook isn't really all that much better or more convenient than having your own website, or sending emails or chats. But for some reason, Facebook (and Instagram) are where we post now. Facebook has of course become something much larger than a single website, and has, despite its flaws, "helped connect the world" for better or worse. But Facebook tapped into a trend that was already happening -- it didn't invent the idea of letting people put stuff about their lives online, it just monetized it better.
Facebook gets a lot of credit for "disrupting" social media and for turning MySpace into a worthless piece of garbage, but millions upon millions of teenagers and young adults were already sharing every aspect of their lives on other social networks, and on their own websites. Facebook had the good fortune of being new, slightly different, and exclusive. It was even luckier to come to power shortly before the rise of the smartphone. I guess what I'm saying is that Facebook isn't really all that much better or more convenient than having your own website, or sending emails or chats. But for some reason, Facebook (and Instagram) are where we post now. Facebook has of course become something much larger than a single website, and has, despite its flaws, "helped connect the world" for better or worse. But Facebook tapped into a trend that was already happening -- it didn't invent the idea of letting people put stuff about their lives online, it just monetized it better.
You mean go back to how it was? (Score:5, Funny)
LOL.. Replace Facebook with personal websites eh? Isn't that how this whole internet thing got started back when I was in college?
Re:You mean go back to how it was? (Score:5, Funny)
We should bring the <blink> tag back too
Re:You mean go back to how it was? (Score:4, Funny)
When I need to tell people how long I've been making websites, I say "I've been doing this since frames were the hot new thing!"
LOL! One of my students in my web programming class was having a problem with an embedded style sheet. I looked at it and noticed she was missing a semicolon in one of her styles. I pointed it out to her immediately and she said in amazement "How long have you been doing this?" and I said "Since before you were born." I think she's a sophomore, makes me feel OLD.
Re:You mean go back to how it was? (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL.. Replace Facebook with personal websites eh? Isn't that how this whole internet thing got started back when I was in college?
Other than that wasn't when the Internet started, yes, personal websites or the "Blogosphere" as it was briefly known, was better than Facebook in so many ways. Private, independent forums were also better than Reddit, but I think that day of reckoning is still a ways off.
I'd say (platform X) was better than Twitter, but the truth is No Twitter, or a Twitter Shaped Hole, is the best alternative to that platform.
Re: What we need is personal SERVERS! (Score:2, Insightful)
Nextcloud.
your welcome
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ownCloud [owncloud.org]
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on a "local" social network that is just that - meant for your local neighborhood called Next Door. [nextdoor.com]
I got some scrap furniture to build a desk, bought another desk, and gotten rid of old appliances using it. It's about 80% "I found this dog, have you seen my dog? Who's cat is this?" but since it's truly local it's a good way to find out when the water is coming back on, get pictures of the truck that hit the light pole and took out the power in your area and bitch about the the pothole in the street o
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I fondly remember the MySpace days.
Bring back Geocities! (Score:2)
Re:Bring back Geocities! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At least Geocities sites sucked differently compared to Facebook. Variety in suckage is better than mass-manufactured cookie-cutter PHB-controlled suckage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one wrong thought gets you kicked off of all of the platforms.
it's also asking a question in tech forums supported by companies, ask in the wrong dept and you are banned for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
And what about those who control the spice?
Yeah because (Score:4, Informative)
google and bookface would totally honor things like robots.txt files on a personal website, especially if it's hosted on some garbage "cloud" social site.
They would never harvest your data and sell it to hundreds of companies. /s
Re:Yeah because (Score:5, Insightful)
Their spider would not gen information about who visits my page or what pages I visit.
The information they can sell is only what I make public.
Re:Yeah because (Score:5, Insightful)
google and bookface would totally honor things like robots.txt files on a personal website, especially if it's hosted on some garbage "cloud" social site.
They would never harvest your data and sell it to hundreds of companies. /s
Yes but they don't get the pleasure of recording IP, cookie, browser, or any other tracking information of you as the site owner. They don't get to access anything you put behind a login. They don't get whatever information you willingly post on a public website already categorized and piped into their database.
Still better (Score:3)
Google and bookface would totally honor things like robots.txt files on a personal website, especially if it's hosted on some garbage "cloud" social site.
To be robots.txt was always more about "don't waste your own resources indexing this" than any kind of privacy mechanism. If they want to ignore that, hey, it's their CPU and storage.
I think personal websites still seems better. Anything public at least multiple sites would index so they could be searched generally. Anything I didn't want public I could
Re: (Score:3)
To be robots.txt was always more about "don't waste your own resources indexing this" than any kind of privacy mechanism.
It was an instruction to automated data collectors not to index or access certain pages. Whether you tell them that because you are worried about their precious resources or because you care about your own, doesn't change the meaning.
If they want to ignore that, hey, it's their CPU and storage.
Webservers don't run on vacuum. They consume CPU resources. It's not just their CPU and storage that robots.txt was intended to protect.
I recall fondly one asshole indexer that was accessing my website, calling for a dynamically generated page (tide predictions) once every ten
Re: (Score:2)
Now the real problem is - who is hosting these personal websites? Is it Tumblr, Wordpress?
Geocities.
Re: (Score:2)
google and bookface would totally honor things like robots.txt files on a personal website, especially if it's hosted on some garbage "cloud" social site.
Google absolutely does honor robots.txt.
Re: (Score:2)
Google absolutely does honor robots.txt.
How about the Do Not Track header?
Re: (Score:2)
Google absolutely does honor robots.txt.
How about the Do Not Track header?
I don't believe Google sites pay attention to the DNT header.
GeoCities and AngelFire (Score:2)
Some of those sites were fun to browse
You also go to start somewhere.
the Indieweb/Fediverse is a thing. (Score:5, Informative)
People have been building the protocols to support this at https://indieweb.org/ [indieweb.org] and http://activitypub.rocks/ [activitypub.rocks].
If you're not ready to host your own software, public installations of Mastodon are a decent alternative - https://instances.social/list [instances.social]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the Indieweb/Fediverse is a thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IndieWeb is not a "service" but just a branding for returning to personal websites. It consists of a handful of protocols that a personal website may implement:
- microformats [indieweb.org], which sits on top of HTML's class attribute
- Webmention [indieweb.org], which travels over HTTPS
- IndieAuth [indieweb.org], a simplified replacement for OpenID that also travels over HTTPS
The power of constraints (Score:5, Interesting)
Google succeeded by making the search place on the Internet simple to use (one box, one, or was it two, buttons) and uncluttered by unsightly banner ads.
There's a lesson in that.
Giving too many degrees of freedom, or too much disorganized and useless information, reduces the size of the user base.
So maybe if someone comes up with a website-making template thing that makes personal websites (and their interaction) as constrained and uniform to use as facebook is, maybe that could happen. Otherwise, it won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Maybe a phone app that understands verbal cues and commands, your personal agenda, your contact list (including their faces) and uses this knowledge to handle media *as you generate it*.
E.g., you saying "this is such a gorgeous place" when snapping a picture of scenery in Kawai'i uploads a suitable resolution of the photo, along with a distribution list, to your parents phone, or to a couple of peers, who then distribute it using some sort of bit-torrent P2P method. Maybe a low-power RasPi or
Like desktop Linux? (Score:2)
Giving too many degrees of freedom, or too much disorganized and useless information, reduces the size of the user base.
(Ducks. Walks out in a fire-resistant suit.)
Re: The power of constraints (Score:2)
The larger barrier to entry on Wikipedia is knowing something relevant and being able to find citations. The actual Wikicode was trivial in comarison. Not so when sharing pictures of your cat.
Re:you mean remake Facebook? (Score:3)
Why? (Score:2)
Facebooks use of personal data can be regulated. The use of data from a public site such as "Jason's Site." is an order of magnitude harder to regulate due to it being accessible to anyone, I don't see how that's an improvement.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing to regulate about a personal web site. There's no data being collected and sold.
Web scraping. What I believe people are worried about is the collection of personal data by private companies, with facebook that's regulated by the user agreement and your national laws. What I see being proposed is giving that information up freely to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lazy (Score:2)
I disagree. It's because most people are lazy. I know plenty of people who knew better and still don't have their own web sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatives to Facebook (Score:2)
Tumblr, Blogger, etc are not much different than GeoCities and MySpace back in the day. Being totally devoid of social networking makes these better than Facebook according to the criteria in the article, but most people aren't following the author's arbitrary criteria. Running your own website still has some technical hurdles for most people, but there are plenty of alternatives that get you nearly there or you pay for a full blown CMS. Larger organizations and clubs can run WordPress through a hosting com
If our ISPs would let us (Score:3, Interesting)
more people would have their own personal site. Those Raspberry Pis are perfect for it. But I believe most contracts prohibit you from operating a server. This is yet another reason we must demand that ISPs be given common carrier status.
Re: (Score:2)
This is yet another reason we must demand that ISPs be given common carrier status.
You're going to count on the same government that gave them a monopoly grant to protect your access to the Internet? When it goes against their interests of having everybody's content centrally-controlled?
Good luck with that. The rest of us will be over on Starlink.
Re: (Score:2)
more people would have their own personal site. Those Raspberry Pis are perfect for it. But I believe most contracts prohibit you from operating a server. This is yet another reason we must demand that ISPs be given common carrier status.
Who cares? What are they going to do about it?
Facebook isn't just for the vain (Score:4, Insightful)
The original appeal of Facebook for me is how easy it was to stay connected. Search for a long-lost friend and BOOM you are connected forever. If you are old enough to remember manually keeping an address book up to date, then you are old enough to remember how freeing it felt to be relieved of this responsibility. For frequent contacts? Sure, enter the contact into your phone (if it isn't already synced with Facebook). But for everyone else, it's a great way to stay in touch. Or maybe not a great way, but it's a way and it requires no effort.
Now I like it because I can stay plugged in to local events - local papers are either closed or worthless now, so for good or bad social media == local news.
I don't really post much on there, but I do share a lot of photos - it has replaced Flickr for me in that regard... but that was as simple as changing the plugin that I use in Lightroom.
Re: (Score:2)
The original appeal of Facebook for me is how easy it was to stay connected. Search for a long-lost friend and BOOM you are connected forever. If you are old enough to remember manually keeping an address book up to date, then you are old enough to remember how freeing it felt to be relieved of this responsibility. For frequent contacts? Sure, enter the contact into your phone (if it isn't already synced with Facebook). But for everyone else, it's a great way to stay in touch. Or maybe not a great way, but it's a way and it requires no effort.
Now I like it because I can stay plugged in to local events - local papers are either closed or worthless now, so for good or bad social media == local news.
I don't really post much on there, but I do share a lot of photos - it has replaced Flickr for me in that regard... but that was as simple as changing the plugin that I use in Lightroom.
true there are good things facebook does. Why not keep those features and throw out the personal stuff. There's no reason it can't be both. And besides if Facebook dies the market for what facebook does doesn't die. People might take back their data but connectedness could still work just not centralized under the control of a silicon valley nerd who doesn't consider how life works for people who aren't him.
Re: (Score:2)
Search for a long-lost friend and BOOM you are connected forever.
Are you sure this is always desirable? Coming up with instances in which it isn't should be a trivial exercise.
If you are old enough to remember manually keeping an address book up to date, then you are old enough to remember how freeing it felt to be relieved of this responsibility.
The FSB still employ typewriters for sensitive records, and I still keep my address book on paper. I'm not especially interested in anyone other than myself knowing who all my contacts are.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure this is always desirable? Coming up with instances in which it isn't should be a trivial exercise.
Re:Brave soul (Score:2)
Good idea but.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
...but we should add the personal websites under a single domain so people can go there to find them and search them easily. We could call it mypage.com or something.
Oh, and also it should be completely free to use, because people won't pay for it, and it can't require people to know anything about building a site, running a server, etc. So we'll need an ad-supported hosting system with a super easy to use content management system.
There are actually very good reasons why Facebook et al replaced personal web sites, you know.
Build Your Own Brand (Score:4, Insightful)
Running your own web-server has gotten easier and cheaper. A RaspberryPI 3 would easily handle the traffic for most people's personal sites. And high speed connections are much less costly than they used to be for the speed you get.
Replacing Facebook with yet another central repository like GeoCities used to be is not a step forward, or backward, it's just the same thing.
Facebook beat MySpace because of Glitter GIFs and other ungodly customizations that were so popular. Going to someone's page was unbearable. That's why Facebook banned GIFs for so long on their site and they highly control the layout to something simple and elegant instead of allowing garish monstrosities.
If you want to make a go of being a "somebody" on the internet, then yes, you should build your own brand, host your own content and stop running ads that point to a megacorp's platform.
Even streaming videos is trivial these days. I have the public domain "His Girl Friday" streaming on my own server as a proof of concept.
The closer you get to the ISP the closer you get to the first amendment being enforced. Freedom of the Press doesn't give you a right to another man's printing press. Roll your own. Then you can print what you want and no one can shut you down without a court order that shows your "speech" isn't protected by the first amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make a go of being a "somebody" on the internet, then yes, you should build your own brand, host your own content and stop running ads that point to a megacorp's platform.
... or you could pay a few bucks a month to a responsible ISP and let them deal with the hassles of hosting. My personal web sites costs be about $3/year.
Or I could pay Facebook $0 and not have to mess with a website at all.
but we're talking about $3 to not have your information sold without your consent. $3 to be able to control access to your information. People waste far more money on far less. Might be the best $3 you've ever spent.
Re: (Score:2)
Carrier-grade NAT; disconnection for AUP violation (Score:2)
Running your own web-server has gotten easier and cheaper. A RaspberryPI 3 would easily handle the traffic for most people's personal sites. And high speed connections are much less costly than they used to be for the speed you get.
Provided your ISP both legally and technically allows running a server at home. If the ISPs in your area put their home subscribers behind carrier-grade NAT [wikipedia.org], your ISP's router won't forward inbound connections on port 443 of your public IP to your NAT IP. If you're on a home plan, each of the high-volume ISPs serving your address could disconnect your service for running a server, which violates the typical home ISP acceptable use policy (AUP).
The closer you get to the ISP the closer you get to the first amendment being enforced.
With the death of net neutrality in the United States, the ISP o
Could still be standardized (Score:4, Insightful)
We could have protocols for doing facebook-like stuff, like sharing walls and groups and... whatever else is on facebook. We could have an open source reference implementation. It could all be decentralized, and made available by ISPs in the same way they make email available (that basically means teenagers won't have to compile a kernel so they can install Linux on a raspberry pi just to share cat pictures). Such a network wouldn't have a single, ruling company - it would all be decentralized.
Re:Could still be standardized (Score:4, Funny)
what do you mean "should"? (Score:2)
Seems weird to use the word "should" for something we did 10-20 years ago, or maybe more than that. I guess the people who don't care didn't, but if they don't care then they don't matter. Do we really need the world to be a cult where everyone has to do everything that everybody else does?
Of course, a bunch of personal websites aren't the same thing as Facebook, but I don't expect facts to derail a rant.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That‘s why he has an RSS newsfeed. If everybody had a newsfeed on their personal website, it would be easy to keep track of all updates.
Re: (Score:2)
And then we could party like it's 1999.
Re:Yeah, sure.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because I'm going to spend all day going from one friend's site to another to another..... rather than a single site to find out what's going on with all my friends and family.
Also solved [wikipedia.org] long before Facebook.
Re:Yeah, sure.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook isn't the first iteration of this problem. It isn't even the second. Before Facebook was MySpace. Before MySpace was GeoCities. (Before GeoCities was AOL, but that more Internet access via a portal instead of TCP/IP on your computer). In each case the individual wanting to publish on the web was faced with two choices:
That's the fundamental problem. Getting updates from multiple sites is easy. It's the site setup, maintenance, and cleanup work if you get haced (that most people wouldn't have a clue how to do anyway) that's hard. It's a lot easier just to have someone else deal with all that for you. And if that someone else requires you to sell your soul^H^H^H^Hdata and personal info for their services, people start to think that's a pretty good deal.
This is why I've constantly railed against Open Source project managers and contributors who are dismissive or condescending towards user requests. If you don't make it easy for users (people who don't know how to program) to use your software, they will just use some other software which makes it easy for them. And Facebook, Google, Apple are more than happy to give them that easy user experience easy in exchange for the user's soul.
If you want Open Source to succeed, you have to make it easy for users, not just for programmers.
Re:Yeah, sure.... but we have protocols (Score:2)
Because I'm going to spend all day going from one friend's site to another to another..... rather than a single site to find out what's going on with all my friends and family.
sounds like a job for a protocol. A way to label a friend's site once and be able to access it easily from there. The idea isn't that everyone should have their own personal website customized like a tumblr page. But that everyone should create their own facebook using whatever template becomes popular. Presumably like a mastadon ID you can give someone a URI or a customized handle that lets you incorporate into whatever dashboard you'll have and you can get the updates there.
No, 'we' shouldn't do any such thing. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What people should go back to doing is actually connecting with people directly, and in person as much as possible, rather than the fake, sterile experience of using the Internet, which it seems to me more often than not is used to avoid actually being social. It's also screwing up the socialization of kids, especially teeangers, who are socially awkward more often than not to start with, and who need more practice socializing, not excuses to be socially avoidant.
There is value in ephemeral experiences that is difficult to describe if you are used to trying to capture and share all of the highlights of your life.
It can be summarized like:
Would you rather get to sing around a Piano with Sir Paul McCartney with a few people and not be able to prove it, or would you rather do one of those Youtube collaborations with him for the whole world to see but never meet him in person?
As for socialization of teens, I would rather remove the real-life sources of crappy socializ
Re: (Score:2)
That's a whole 'nother animal from "get to sing around a Piano" and takes quite a bit of self-importance to think that you're actually 'collaborating' with him. And since Mr McCartney spends his time working with people who are on his level vis a vis recording/video processes, my guess is that *he'd* rather sit around a piano enjoying a casual song with people who aren't.
Email lists (Score:2)
Nah, we should go back to emailing everyone in our contacts photos and family updates several times a year. Maybe cram it all into a PDF.
Make the web great again (Score:2)
Email lists and IRC. Yahoo chat and search engines that really found content.
Sites that people interested in a topic had to put effort into.
No shadow bans, freedom of speech. Freedom after speech.
No Spanish government demanding removal of all content relating to anything about a Catalan declaration of independence.
No French government saying that people cant make fun of French politics using cartoons, music, art.
No German government removing comments on German h
Re: (Score:2)
Those things are not gone. It's just that the masses don't use them.
You can find lots of forums out there on the web. IRC is still jumping. All these things are still out there, but only a small number of people used them.
Truth is, only a small number of people EVER used them. Think of the users of those legacy services as a circle in a Venn diagram of all Internet users being another circle around them. The larger circle of all users has been growing continuously and has now dwarfed the circle representing
Re: (Score:2)
Thats what made the net so great, every site was run by someone who was a buff (enthusiast), was smart, creative. Did they pay for an expert to create their site?
Add in hosting costs.
With social media and its politically active staff censorship is now an option for any domestic or international reason.
Getting your speech discovered (Score:2)
No Communist Party in China setting up a search engine with a US brand to never find results on Tiananmen square, a funny bear or words like term limits.
In the era of "forums and web sites" (which I take to mean between when home ISPs began service in the early 1990s to when Facebook left closed beta in September 2006), what search engine not beholden to a large company existed? Governments and brands don't need to coerce away the actual speech; they just need to coerce away the ability for prospective viewers to find such speech. Getting your speech discovered in the first place is the one problem that IndieWeb hasn't solved yet: "None currently." [indieweb.org]
What an excellent idea. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've already done my part. [slashdot.org]
If the nerd in each family where to do this, then start cross-linking with the nerds in other families in their circles we would have the share your meme, dog, and rug-rat circuit family and low-tech users need!
Silos (Score:2)
If the nerd in each family where to do this, then start cross-linking with the nerds in other families in their circles
How does the nerd in one family go about discovering nerds in other families in the first place without using big "silo" sites such as Facebook, Wikia, and Slashdot? If it involves face-to-face exchange of URLs, that's a bit more difficult on account of social interaction disorders that disproportionately afflict nerds, such as Asperger-type autism.
Could build your own platform.. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are tools like Diaspora* that essentially let you setup your own little facebook that can even hook up with other Diaspora* shards. At one point I thought about trying to get my wife and all her friends to migrate over to a private Diaspora* shard with paid hosting.
Was to hard a sell to the wife so I decided not to bother, but it definitely looked like a viable replacement. Not sure it supported all the games which was a deal breaker not to mention I don't want to run a social network site for fun.
But there are options.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to mention Diaspora.
BIX - does anyone remember BIX (Score:4, Insightful)
Allow me to repost from another thread:
Byte (magazine) Information Exchange
That was "Social Media"
That was fun.
That was informative.
And it cost - money - to belong. Not a lot of money, but the members paid for the service.
We were the users, clients - Byte was the service provider, Bix was the service.
Clear as a bell.
Also there was Delphi and several others.
(even AOL?)
Then there were 'hidden cost' services like a college account and USNET.
Why put up with Farce Book?
I actually HAVE a personal website (Score:3)
....and it just links to my social media accounts.
Ahh, the irony.
But the truth is, I'm just tired of having to constantly update and maintain my website's software. If you don't do it, eventually security holes get around and the machine hosting it gets hacked. It doesn't matter which one you use, every CMS like Drupal, WordPress and so on need active system administration. I already do it for a living, and don't have much energy for it when I get home.
So the solution is to have just static pages and content on my own webserver, and link to my social media accounts for the day to day blab.
I know, I can do better. But I'm lazy, like most sysadmins.
Hear, hear people, ... (Score:2)
... Captain Obvious just awoke from 17 years of hibernation.
Yes! (Score:2)
Everyone should have their own space, in fact that what we will call it. Their space. Sound like the sleeper hit of 2019.
Didn't Opera have this feature (Score:2)
some person site/server feature in the Opera browser?
Looks like it did (Score:2)
https://www.wired.com/2009/10/... [wired.com]
But first.... (Score:3)
shops, clubs, restaurants, cafes should start to at least provide their schedules on an own webpage without forcing abybody to "follow them" on facebook or log in to facebook.
(And that, for their own sake. Never got why anybody would put more there than a link ot the real web page, because, let's be realistic: If you have a well running shop/cafe, then that would be the most profitable place to advertise for sponsored ads....)
FB needs to be socialized (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Works for Drudge Report (Score:2)
One of the few conservatives who has not been censored, shadow banned, demonitized, deplatformed, or whatever.
Also does not have Zuckerberg sending his private information to major corporations.
Drudge was way ahead of the curve on this. He recommend this "old school" methodology long before the slaughter of conservatives.
Conservatives who depended on google, twitter, or facebook have been ruined.
Dazzle buttons are cool (Score:2)
Newsfeeds (Score:2)
And animated GIFs (Score:2)
We need all those animated GIFs back too. And .MID files that plays something that almost is recognizable, a page view counter with 12 digits so we know it got 000000000139 page refreshes from the author.
For those that don't care about security... (Score:2)
The whole topic of finding people, affinity groups and other social networking site features will have to wait until I recover from thinking about how this would be better in any way from a security and privacy point of view...
Re:IndieWeb & Interoperable Online Communities (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IndieWeb & Interoperable Online Communities (Score:5, Funny)
First website to be /.ed in a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's "we", and why do feel "we" can do this?
Hey, if the "Zuck" can create Facebook, surely WE can replace it.... Right? Right?
Take Slashdot for instance......
(sarc: off)
Re: (Score:3)
How is this news worthy? How did this make it to slashdot? How does someone have such a terrible idea that becomes news on the internet and then posted to slashdot which then passes the mods?
You must be new here. This is Slashdot... We fight over ALL the best bad ideas on the internet for fun here.