I have had this vision for a while, and one day I hope to build up to that point. I've noticed that most services on the internet that people use are free and useful. This was fine for quite some time, but then a growing concern grew around the world. Data collection going on at a massive scale, which isn't a problem until someone does something evil with it. Many Americans don't have a clue what is going on anyway, but it really isn't always their fault (not to get into that topic here, but long story short, the richer people keep their information from the less fortunate in many ways). But the main problem is that most either don't care at all, or get their information from the news…
But because of this problem, I thought it would be interesting if you could take advantage of this kind of situation. What if you could make a network of technologies similar to the big ones today, like facebook, twitter, youtube, and even new ones like an updated phrot system (heh). But build a trust network that, instead of collecting your information for profits, you agree to keep all information private, and only charge a low cost for the user (e.g. about $1/month). I feel that many would rather pay $1/mo. than constantly worry about their information privacy, especially for those who are asked to use computers where they have little knowledge of them and get into trouble by compromising their data. The technology would be funded by people who support the kind of system that they would rather have, and you could always have the option to use free services instead.At that point, there could be optional settings to allow the collection of your data or not to specific groups. It would also cut down on advertisements to maybe only trusted organizations, and have better security options to reduce the amount of spam and attacks. That type of development detail would cost considerable extra time and money to accomplish, but would not be in as much interest of free systems because there is benefit for them to not do it.If such system would exist, maybe I would have to fix my family's virus-infected computers so often…(lol)
With all the data collection going on lately...
Posted by Alert Games on Oct. 6, 2014, 10:58 a.m.
Comments
that sounds great and all but unfortunately it would never become big like Facebook, it wouldn't even be a notable competitor. The main attraction for a social media network is it's appeal to those who know very little about software, personal information and it's value, and the cost to run such networks. Everyone and their grandma flock to Facebook because it's already popular and appealing. None of those people care one bit about their personal information and posts, pictures, etc being sold for money. So none of those people would switch to a network that costs them a monthly bill.
That's not to say that there aren't people who would be interested in a service like that, many people would but it would be a small niche most likely. A bunch of tech savvy people like us, or a few other groups of anti-facebook members.I read an article a little while back that made a similar point. You're entirely right: if we don't want to be the product, we have to start paying for products. I just don't know that it's going to happen and definitely if Facebook were a subscription-based service I doubt it would be the incredibly useful social utility it is now.
@death: I agree, but I am curious if the tech savvy and pro-privacy people would sign their parents and grandparents up for it? Consider this: If there was a service that made sure that the information is only from trusted partners, there would be a decrease in scams that they fall victim to, and an increase in adoption because of its simplicity (it would have to be easy to learn and use). I mean lets face it, grandmas don't join facebook because they found it on their own, they use it because they were told about it from family and friends.
When I say a system though, Im talking about a service that gives more reliability to the average computer user. You wouldnt BELIEVE (or maybe you would) the number of people who get a new computer and then drop another $100 on top of that to fix the virus they got within a few weeks. Now what would you rather pay, $100 repair of viruses, or $1/mo. for 100 months of more reliable and safe experience?But this is, of course, if you could have services to help minimize the risk of attacks on a computer by only exposing the person to reliable networks. It would be challenging, but an interesting concept imo.I believe that's kind of what Ello is trying to do. For now it's free, but I think their plan is to bring in paid features, and keep advertising and sales of data completely out of it.
The problem as I see it is that people demand certain standards but a lot of us are unwilling to pay for them. We want the best things but we want them as cheap as possible, if not free. When people go to the supermarket and buy meat, they want the best, most organic, free-range meat possible, but only if it's cheap enough.Personally, I am happy to go the route of "cheap and cheerful". I will always try to find the cheapest food at the supermarket, or the best deal on travel. I'm happy to stay on a free Facebook or Twitter and be bombarded with adverts. And in all honesty, I don't really care if they are selling my data. I don't put anything on social networks that I wouldn't mind anyone knowing about.I just don't care enough to pay for a service where they promise not to do these things.I dunno anything about Ello really. At this point I'm just ignoring it. Rather, I just don't care because I am finding it harder and harder to give a shit about integrated social network sites. Twitter is enough for me, recently. Just post shit. I don't need a thousand other features.
Regarding the $1/mo for privacy thing, I had an idea a few years back to make a service to allow sites to let people manage subscriptions like that. Idea was that as a user, I would have an account on this service, and if a website supported it, I could just click a button on that website to pay for ad removal, and it would be instantly added to my monthly payrate. Ad removal + whatever else. It could be a nice alternative to ad-block, which, while nice for the end-user, undermines the financial base of the internet, and is part of the reason why sites with ads have so many ads and work so hard to make their ads work well: because those with ad-block make them have to work harder for the same revenue.I'd rather just pay. I'm sure I'm not alone.@twisterghost: Yeah that is kind of what I'm getting at. There is so much shit on the internet that causes so many problems. In fact, yesterday I wanted to use a friend's computer, and I ended up spending an hour removing all the adware on it that she has no idea how she got it. But she did say that sometimes she will click an ad on accident, so who knows.
However, my thoughts on this extends beyond a paywall for a site. For example, with google you can click a wrong link and download a virus program. In facebook, you can click on something that you want to read about and you'll get adware. etc. etc.If there was a paid network system, you could only allow trusted links and pages to be reached, and the click-costs could be distributed. Less worry about adware and viruses, and more trust on the sources of the information. I'm sure some would just download ad block and be on their merry way, but others who don't know how to fiddle with those kinds of things may prefer just to pay a cheap price.@eagly: I agree with Steven on this one. Ello looks like it has an identity crisis with not a whole lotta good structure to its design. They don't even have a clear message on what it is trying to do. Sounds kinda 'hipsterbative' to me. ha. Kinda like designing a new Tumblr.
I think the reason why the social networks dont monitor the content as much is because it costs money, and they have no competition against it. I think if you market a service the right way that is more controlling of the content in a fair manor, it may put more pressure to "audit" the content sites. I have a feeling that many many people would pay for an almost "Idiot Proof" system. Remember: The majority of people are not tech savvy.Oh, gosh, please don't take my bringing up Ello as advocating it. I don't know a lot about it, and I completely agree with Steven's comments too. I was just using it as an example as something that says it doesn't want to sell data or advertisements.
In regards to content, places like Facebook rely on their user base to moderate content by reporting spammy ads and bad content.Like I said, I'm happy with using the free services of Facebook and Twitter.I think there's a bigger obstacle in the way called Google, whose main business is recording almost every Internet query and request on the planet.
Ultimately what's fuelling this is advertisements. Capitalism is quite innocent really, they just want to sell you lots of stuff that they know you'll buy. Alert Games is right, if you look at TV channels, the only ones that don't run ads are the premium subscription ones like HBO and the government funded ones like BBC and NHK. Giving the government our social networks is probably a bad idea.Ultimately I don't really care, when it comes to social networks I choose to opt-out, I do use Google Search but I block ads so I win. My social needs are much lower than most people'sand I don't have much hope for humanity anyway@eagly: Ah ok I understand. I mean if you think about it though, neither did facebook or twitter at first.
@Toast: Yeah, google has gotten worse lately. If you don't have an ad blocker, it will show a sponsored result first, which can be malware and viruses. Now I can't recommend google anymore without recommending an ad blocker. (Or I could recommend duckduckgo instead)Honestly, I don't think ads are the problem. I think its the quality of the ads that are the problem. People refuse to use the internet for certain things because of the number of problems that are happening. And Companies are getting hacked by fake email, putting their customers at risk.Personally, I think the first people to make a safer system would profit greatly because of the number of attacks that are going on. I think businesses and everyday people would understand the benefits of such a system.