Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Facebook Network

'Anti-Facebook' MeWe Social Network Adds 2.5 Million New Members In One Week 71

Posted by BeauHD from the privacy-first dept.
Los Angeles-based social media network MeWe, touted to be the ad-free future of social networking, is currently the No. 1 downloaded social app in the Google Play Store, and the No. 3 downloaded app out of all apps in the store. The privacy-first "anti-Facebook" platform added 2.5 million new members in the last week. ZDNet reports: Since launching in 2016, it surged to nine million users in October 2020, doubling its membership during each of the last three years. The platform is currently sitting at 15.5 million members -- 50% of whom are outside of North America. MeWe is now translated into 20 languages and is currently the No. 1 social app in Hong Kong. The company says that its membership spikes frequently -- as people worldwide seek a social network that respects them as customers to be delighted, not with "data to share, target, or sell."

MeWe claims to be the new mainstream social network with the features people love and no ads, no targeting, and no newsfeed manipulation. MeWe is the most downloaded social app and No. 3 in the list of most downloaded apps as of Jan. 15, 2021. It was knocked off the top slot by WhatsApp alternatives Signal and Telegram, which are benefitting from the brouhaha over WhatsApp's data privacy changes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Anti-Facebook' MeWe Social Network Adds 2.5 Million New Members In One Week More

'Anti-Facebook' MeWe Social Network Adds 2.5 Million New Members In One Week

Comments Filter:

  • Since people are going to ask (Score:5, Informative)

    by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @07:30PM (#60966134)

    They think they can generate sufficient revenue from subscriptions and custom emoji.

    • And if that fails they may have to come up with better ways to monetize the business while continuing to not sell users data... I hope they continue to grow their user base.

      • Re:Since people are going to ask (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @07:53PM (#60966180)

        What's to stop them changing their terms of service and starting to sell data? Checking on their site they seem to be a norma US company, not something like "public interest company". Looks so hopeful, but burnt so many times.

      • Re:Since people are going to ask (Score:5, Insightful)

        by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @09:09PM (#60966434)

        And if that fails they may have to come up with better ways to monetize the business while continuing to not sell users data

        Narrator: They don't.

        I mean seriously you all! People want to do away with Facebook, but not solve any actual problems that make Facebook, Facebook. I mean seriously, what does anyone think is going to happen? Hmmmm? Not only the underlying issues of "gee, how do I sustain an economic stream" but also the big players have a mountain of capital and a multitude of lines of credit at their command. So yeah, Twitter the website takes a hit, but Twitter the company just buys someone else and rebrands. It's not like the general public knows or cares about the difference. They may golden parachute Dorsey and say they're a new company... But really if you buy that, I've got a few bridges in New York and California to sell you.

        I mean, here's one! You all remember that good oldie of kill the cable company only to have all the streaming services turn into basically what the cable company was doing? I mean, at least now we get month to month contracts instead of year long contracts, so I guess that's a win. But in terms of major upsets, yeah, no, it didn't happen and it ain't going to happen. Why? Because NBC is now Comcast and ABC is now Disney and so on. The cable companies just used their mountains of capital and slew of lines of credit to just buy everything that stood a challenge to them up. So does literally anyone think anything different is actually going to happen with social media? Like seriously?

        These companies have too much damn money, till anyone solves that, no one has a solution to anything else. And as much as the wet dreams of Slashdot are that apparently these companies just magically go bankrupt tomorrow, them letting their cash dwindle to nothing will only happen from massive incompetence or some major new legislation that puts a hard brake on their cashflow. But outside of that, if their user base starts to recede AND they see it coming, they'll just buy something else and rebrand. And whatever is today's anti-Facebook, is just tomorrow's Facebook. Because nobody actually wants to solve real issues, they just want vindication.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:24PM (#60966668)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rhipf ( 525263 )

            1. A large crop of independent companies not associated with the major movie studios, the most well known being Netflix, but a sizable number of smaller companies from resellers of syndicated content to opera channels run by opera houses. Additionally, while it needs some reforms YouTube is certainly a major improvement on public access.

            I'm not sure if I would call Netflix an "independent compan[y] not associated with the major movie studios" at this point. They produce enough of their own movie content at this point that I think I would consider them one of the "major movie studios". 8^)

          • "But that's fine, if you're creating a social network, it's not going to be viable if all you have are refugees from other social networks who were kicked out because they were toxic, rather than fled because they valued their privacy." Couple things: 1. Who gets to define what toxic behavior is? Isn't that the same problem as creating a Ministry of Truth? Will the Ministry of Truth determine what toxic behavior is objectively without an agenda? 2. I doubt privacy is the only reason people are starting t
          • Yes the biden admin is gonna be really hard on big tech. I mean aside from hiring all facebook’s staff i wouldn’t hold my breath. Big tech got him elected. If not for their thumb on the scale he would still be former VP biden. FB and twitter will take care of themselves if we open up the app store and let others on. I like FB. I would pay 10 or 20 a month for A FB that was a neutral platform.
        • Well, we still don't have any advertisement on Netflix and I'd say that's a BIG win!

          Advertisers are continually pressuring Netflix to add advertisements so they can once again reach the audience they're not reaching (which is growing every year, since people are totally fed up with the advertising on tv).
        • I quite like a social media monopoly! Imagine if we had to buy ten different phone books because some of our friends were in particular ones. I realise phone books are a poor example because surely nobody uses them now, but anyway...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      The bookface has over 2e9 active users. I'd gladly pay $1/year, or $10 lifetime (they can live off the usury) for something which doesn't make me the product. With scale, they don't need to charge much. I did the #deletefacebook thing 7-8 years ago, and don't miss it.

      • Re:Since people are going to ask (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @08:45PM (#60966358)

        FB averages approx $8/user/year in revenue. Still a very reasonable sum for a privacy preserving service - for those in the first world. To maintain that average over the billion plus users who cannot provide that, first world users might need to spend $5/month. Still, not super-outrageous

        .

        • While delivering targeted ads and selling your data brings in more money than it costs for Facebook, it does cost money, so if another network doesn't do those things, it can operate with lower costs.

        • That $8 figure is determined not by how much the website costs to run, but how much advertisers are willing to pay.

          If MeWe doesn't concern themselves with buying up every competitor, adjacent product, VR headset manufacturer, dildo factory... If they just want to run the website and earn a comfortable living from it, they wouldn't need to charge anywhere near that.

        • They don't have to make the same revenue as Facebook. They have to make enough to support staff and hardware.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • The market valuation of Facebook is US$226 per user. So, $10 is just not going to cut it.

        Could you get a billion people to pay $200 for something they can get for "free" now? ("free" = I am the product)

        https://www.thetypefacegroup.c... [thetypefacegroup.co.uk]

        • The market valuation of Facebook is probably based on the expectation that Facebook will be able to buy the next big thing early, because I don't see how their current business could ever be worth that much.

    • Yup, they are doomed

    • Yeah, good luck with that lol

  • To put this into perspective (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @07:41PM (#60966146)
    FB has 2.7 billion users. So they've got about .5% (half of percent) of FB's users. Still, more power to them. And with the current level of scrutiny Facebook (probably) can't just buy them up.
    • Facebook likes to tout that 2.7B number, but what they don't tell us is how many of those users have been active at any time the past week? Month? Year? How many of them are even confirmed to be actual people and not bots or organizations?

      They might not be hemorrhaging users but their active base isn't likely as large as their advertisers believe it to be.

      • Re:To put this into perspective (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @08:18PM (#60966270)
        So basically, many users were baptized into FBholicism, but are now lapsed FBholics, but the FBholic church still counts them towards its membership.
      • and didn't mention it because I'm pretty sure every social network does that. And, well, that includes MeWe too.

        • and didn't mention it because I'm pretty sure every social network does that. And, well, that includes MeWe too.

          The fact that they all do it doesn't make it right or ethical, it just makes it normal. Inflated numbers look good for the bottom line when selling the product, and the seller can look at the other networks for defense of the inflated numbers. It still doesn't make it right though, especially when the numbers are huge and they start trying to claim what percentage of the world's population is on their network. I'd expect by now FB has counted me in their numbers at least once or twice even though I've n

        • Fully agreed. I'd like to think some network could try and push by sending that statistic foward. Though I imagine most are abysmal, and probably worse for the new guys spreading into the scene. Back when I thought social networking was a good idea, and it was just myspace and facebook doing it wrong (yeah it was a long time ago), I'd jump at every possible hope for a new network, I set up my own diaspora pod as soon as they became available, I jumped at google plus, I jumped at everything.... and almost al

    • And with the current level of scrutiny Facebook (probably) can't just buy them up

      Unless the States and the Government start nutting up, they absolutely can. And while there is a lot of bluster to go after Google and Facebook and what-not. And hell's bells, Google is actually being brought into court.. Might I still remind everyone that Microsoft "WAS" an actual monopoly and we see how amazing the Government's "going after them" was then. So yeah, I'll buy that scrutiny line once I see some actual scrutiny happen and not this milquetoast "mother may I have some more money for re-elec

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      How many of their users are bots and fake accounts getting in early?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shark ( 78448 )

      All it takes is a sudden surge in unallowable posts and overwhelming their limited ability to police them. Why spend millions buying them up when it's a lot cheaper to just make sure their existence is no longer politically acceptable. These days, you don't even need fake accounts to do that, there are plenty of real nitwits available and just looking for a voice.

      Politics are a much stronger market force than competition and you don't become Facebook-sized without being keenly aware of this. What I'm mor

  • If enough people displeased by the inordinate power just a few social media sites are presently wielding, the best option is often voting with your feet and your wallet.

    Leave in droves... expedite the diversity of power. If we can't remove the power from the corporations, let's at least water it down.

    • If enough people displeased by the inordinate power just a few social media sites are presently wielding, the best option is often voting with your feet and your wallet.

      Leave in droves... expedite the diversity of power. If we can't remove the power from the corporations, let's at least water it down.

      That's the same thing I keep saying about Amazon and all I hear are excuses why it won't happen. Same here. Someone will give an excuse why people can't leave FB while simultaneously complaining the company has too much power.

    • Leave in droves

      So that way these companies know who to buy out next.

      Yeah voting with your wallet isn't really a fight to be won here. These companies have more in their couch cushions than at least half of America has had in their wallet their entire lifetime. I mean you can draw the battle line on wallets, but they'll win every time.

    • MeWe has been around awhile. I was tempted to go there to follow a group once google+ disbanded but it really didn't have anything useful to recommend it. Facebook seems ok, just don't use it for news, instead use it to keep track of friends and see how their grandkids are doing.

  • Expect more of this as they flock between platforms and the platforms collapse in one way or another. I'm guessing that, once the dust settles on this episode of history, most will go back to Facebook as the devil they know. After all, these are the people for whom "the internet" _IS_ Facebook.

    • I'm guessing that, once the dust settles on this episode of history, most will go back to Facebook as the devil they know.

      Given that Facebook just blocked a BUNCH of conservative posters until over a month from now, why should they EVER go back?

      In that month they'll no doubt find SOME platform where they can talk with like-minded people, and talk to them comfortably for quite some time, while on FB they can only listen and only to liberals.

      And if the new government tries to purge conservative-friendly sites

  • MeWe sounds exactly like what Twtxt is _trying_ to be. Coincidence? Difference; I _probably_ do want to start a not-for-profit company around Twtxt.

  • Imzy tried to be better than Reddit. Their heavy handed and one sided censorship was really bad for the site. If you didn't fall into one of their preferred groups, there was nothing for you.

    I just signed up for WeMe (based on this slashdot post) and it's 'ok' so far.

    I want to a group about roses. Just lots of people spamming photos they took from elsewhere on the web. Zero content.

    Then I applied for a few other groups. The one private group that let me in so far seems to be pretty good with decent dis

  • It has Fingerprinting ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @08:09PM (#60966234)

    I have an extension that alerts me to fingerprinting and the extension provides fake values.

    So, while there's no "targeting," there's actual targeting.

  • If it is then no thanks.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by waspleg ( 316038 )

      It says they're owned by Sgrouples Inc. [bloomberg.com] whose site is just a redirect to MeWe.com.

      This article lists a bunch of funding sources, the company is still private. [marketrealist.com]

      The business section of their wikipedia article says:

      Business

      In 1998, entrepreneur Mark Weinstein established SuperGroups.com, a social media website. The site was closed by its largest investor in 2001.[22] Gathering largely the same leadership team, Weinstein incorporated Sgrouples Inc. in 2011.[2][22][23] MeWe was incorporated as a subsidiary of Sgrouples,[23] and based in Culver City, California.[10] Over the next six years, Sgrouples raised about $10 million from investors including lynda.com founder Lynda Weinman, fashion designer Rachel Roy, and authors Jack Canfield and Marci Shimoff.[8][10]

      MeWe finished its initial financing round in July 2018 by raising $5.2 million in new funds.[8][10] The company began work on upgrading MeWe and initiating work on an enterprise version called MeWePRO.[8]

      MeWe emphasizes its commitment to privacy and remaining ad-free.[2][10] MeWe has said they will never use cookies or spyware to generate content about users, and that it will not track user activity in any way or sell user data to a third party.[7][8] MeWe has described itself as the "anti-Facebook" due to its focus on data privacy, lack of moderation, and simple newsfeed algorithm.[5]

      The MeWe business model does not rely on advertising revenue; rather, MeWe generates revenue from subscription fees and by selling custom emoji.[8][9][24] In December 2019, MeWe announced it would be introducing a premium tier and a separate two-tiered enterprise tier includes voice and video conferencing, as well as integrations with Office 365.[8][24][25]

      Mark Weinstein is the founder and chief executive officer of MeWe.[26] Advisors to MeWe include computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee and filmmaker Cullen Hoback.[27][28]

      So, at least on the surface, it doesn't seem so, but being private means they don't have to disclose much.

  • 4 legs good, 2 legs better
  • Interesting to see how this network got claimed. Sure, youâ(TM)re data apparently isnâ(TM)t sold. But the social dynamics are toxic with âopinionsâ(TM) and paranoia for leftist âinfiltratorsâ(TM). Hannity and more of those types hawking books and posting a steady stream of Foxy content

    • Sure, [your] data apparently isn't sold. But the social dynamics are toxic with "opinions"(TM) and paranoia for leftist "infiltrators"(TM). Hannity and more of those types hawking books and posting a steady stream of Foxy content.

      Awww. Poor snowflake. Did you drop in and find yoursellf melting?

      Don't you think that, to a non-liberal poster who'd been hamstrung by Facebook's censorship, that putting up with some promotions from Hannity and the like might be worth it to be able to talk unhampered with their

    • I was struggling to understand what this post was about? If there's no ads, and I'm not friends with Hannity, how do I get to hear about anything he says?
      Don't I just connect with my friends and talk about what ever we want without fear of ads and manipulated news? You know just like FB was like back in 2008?
    • Apparently you thought your post here was free of opinions?

      And you evaluated it by how much it supported your presuppositions.

      Doesn't that seem a little superficial?

  • I doubt many of these people are quitting Facebook. Seems like they're just adding to their social media addiction. Possible a land grab for usernames.

  • Fakebook, will call whomever their network provider, server farm is, and have them pulled.

  • The best social media is ... (Score:3)

    by Joe2020 ( 6760092 ) on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @11:25PM (#60966670)

    It doesn't matter which school you are in, or which class you attend, what clubs you join or which sports you take part in - at the end of it all do the pretty girls get all the attention. Therefore the best social media is the one with the prettiest girls on it.

  • I don't buy it (Score:3, Informative)

    by Malifescent ( 7411208 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @03:54AM (#60967070)
    When the number of subscribers increases they'll eventually end up with the same ad-based business model as Facebook, perhaps with slightly more privacy but similar enough.

    Running a social network like Facebook costs enormous amounts of money, which has to be earned somehow. Subscriptions have been shown to be ineffective with the younger population.

    Aside from that, you have the problem inertia, most of your contacts will not want to take the time to switch.

    • When the number of subscribers increases they'll eventually end up with the same ad-based business model as Facebook, perhaps with slightly more privacy but similar enough.

      Ads are not the problem. It is to some people, but it is not the *real* problem. The real problem is that Facebook tracks you almost everywhere on the internet. That is detrimental to society. Watching ads is just a personal nuisance.

      If they show ads based on your activities inside the app, or categories of ads that you can select, and give no data to advertisers unless I click, then there is really no problem at all. Obviously there should not be "predatory" ads, deceptive ads, third party ad networks, or

      • What you're describing could be an interesting business model for the next generation of social networks.

        Why does Facebook want to follow their users around the internet anyway? I suppose it's to get a better feel for your preferences so they can target the ads even more precisely.

  • And hence inherently anti-social and never able to change that.

    (It would require direct physical proximity, and also limiting the amount of people you have access to to below Dunbar's number.)

  • Looks to have the same badly designed layout as Facebook. Doesn't really look all that different. The ToS and EULAs are prolly similar.
    Can't check the latter, its blocked at work.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close