You wouldn't be first-tier friends with people you only know from the internet. You'd be first-tier friends with neighbors and cousins and the other parents at your kids' school. Then when I prove (keybase style) that I, HN user ineptech, am also "ineptech" on this social network, you would know that I really am a 48-year-old guy in Portland and not some other person because I have also friended all my irl friends, and our friends-of-friends-of-friends eventually overlap.
Maybe "friend" is the wrong term. Maybe "vouch". You could still message me, but you wouldn't vouch for me, because you don't know from HN whether I am who I say I am.
It's fine if it doesn't fulfill all use cases, but demonstrating any thought to some of them would help flesh out the details of what's being proposed.
Are you building a social network, or a chain of trust?
Are identities fungible, or irrevocably linked to a person's legal name and physicality?
The whole point of vouching for someone is so they can prove they are who they say they are. If you don't want to do that, then don't do that. Or, if you have two identities, I suppose you'd have two accounts.
Anyway, things don't have to be for everyone. In the unlikely scenario in which this gets built, there would still be other websites too.
> Anyway, things don't have to be for everyone. In the unlikely scenario in which this gets built, there would still be other websites too.
Just so we're clear: Do you realize this is how systemic prejudice gets built?
"Our policies disproportionately exclude [insert minority group] in particular? Well it isn't because we're [insert -ist word here]! We love [group]. We're baffled why they would believe otherwise."
You've misunderstood me, no one is being excluded and there's no real name policy. Use a pseudonym, make two accounts, make ten or a hundred if you like. What you can't do is use the app to prove that you really are John Smith, if you didn't sign up as John Smith. And to the extent that one of the main features of the app is to prove your identity, the app would not be useful to someone who doesn't want to do that.
Your example just shows the perils of monopoly social networks.
Today you have Facebook and Twitter (and whatever the kids use these days) with not much in between. If you’re not on those you don’t exist as a person.
If there were more options to choose from you could have a place with all your furry friends that is completely separate from the other aspects of your life like coworkers and family. No need to link between the two, nobody needs to know what you get up to on the other places unless you wanted them to.
If you don't want people to know that you're friends with Dave, don't friend Dave, or don't use it at all. This isn't supposed to replace pseudo-anonymous networks like Twitter, this is more like Facebook without all the bullshit. The use case is "I know Dave, and I don't care who knows that I'm friends with Dave, and I'd like to let him know I won't make it to the PTA meeting without involving an enormous advertising corporation".
Around here, I'm pretty unwelcome at things like tech meetups. I stopped going, after experiencing the "circle of avoidance" thing, a few times.
New York ageism is even worse than Silicon Valley.
No one wants to know me, and I'm OK with that, as I get a lot done, anyway, and the people that matter to me (all over the world) are part of my circle.
Sorry to hear your experience has been that. As someone approaching that point, I wonder whether I will have to find other outlets besides the traditional tech meetups that I was attending more regularly in the times before covid.
Since you do bring experience, I would recommend (if you haven't tried yet), to give talks instead of just attending. I have found that the speakers tend to be well received regardless as they bring value. I did a lightning talk once and had the most positive interactions after my talk than any of the other meetups I attended.
Yeah...the thing about the talks (I'm quite good at that stuff), is that they also skew young, and generally, at least around here, they are considered as currency, so there's a lot of competition for them. I could really give a rat's ass about ego, and I'm not looking for work, so I'm not interested in mud-wrestling some hungry young turk, with a syllabus full of Buzzword Stew, for a speaking engagement.
I'm good at Swift and native Apple stuff. I've given courses on it, in the past. I was actually shocked to find out that no one is really interested in that, out here. I could go into the city, but, quite frankly, I'd rather eat ghost peppers.
Chris, I read your blog and many of your posts here. You are a good writer. Please don't stop.
First, it sucks that you are facing that age discrim IRL. In the tech world, "doing talks" is a bit like publishing in scientific research. It builds a brand name for yourself and increases your value. This is why the young and aggressive (and mostly men) want to do it. Plus, it is a form of fame and adoration. The same group wants that too.
Second, I had a idea reading this post: Did you ever consider "doing a talk" with an audience of zero? Record it exactly like you are giving a talk, then post to your blog or YouTube. People would watch it; I know it. The difference: You couldn't mix with an excited, buzzing crowd after your talk, but maybe the comments section would be interesting. If you get lucky (great talk), it will pop-up on HN. For example, you said you are "good at Swift and native Apple stuff". Watch a few YouTube videos on the topic. Find areas of weakness. That is an easy way to generate ideas.
Thanks. I’ve considered doing stuff like Vimeo/YouTube stuff, and may do so, but it’s a lot of work. I’ve had a full dance card, the last couple of years, and that has even affected my text postings (which is why I came up with my “Shorties”[0] series).
I enjoy writing, but don’t enjoy video production as much (but I haven’t really done enough to say that, definitively).
When I give talks and classes, I spend a lot of time, preparing. I spent close to a month, preparing this 90-minute Bluetooth class[1].
Excuse me for being direct, but do you mean to say you don’t care about other people, only whether what they say is accurate and whether they can communicate it without emotional reaction?
I view all interactions as transactional. Some interactions are net-positives, but most are net-negatives. I value those who reciprocate and avoid those who do not.
From my perspective, your question is quite nuanced. I do not value people (in general) because I place no value on life. We are born, we live, and then we die. In time, we will all be forgotten. The outcome is absolute.
This level of optimization away from other humans in my experience tends to come from specific forms of introverted high intelligence (interaction with others is a net loss) but also specialization functionally/professionally away from interaction with humans (typically toward machines, or at least into more constrained work environments).
I haven't yet found something I feel passionately about. I recently finished refactoring a pid-free analytics application but now find myself without motivation. I love solving problems but dislike the rest.
I'll look into the niches you mentioned. Thanks for the reply and your time.
