Good gracious, I was completely flabbergasted when I saw your comment. Because you see I didn't remember posting this. The thing is, just a few minutes ago I made this very post on my wordpress blog I'm making now, so I decided it got reposted from there somehow. And only then I remembered that a few days ago I looked into reviving THIS blog, but realized it didn't have an easy way to post images. I don't have the time to upload images elsewhere or here on DW before making a post, so I'm now moving everything to my self hosted blog. I've transfered all the posts from LJ and now do the weeding. It's a very sobering experience, looking back at your old posts -- makes you realize how much shit you produce... I will reply to your question on FB soon.
Not as simple as dragging directly to where you're posting, but an image URL is automatically created for embedding in posts, so no harder than inserting YouTube videos, etc.
"makes you realize how much shit you produce..."
:)
Do you remember making all the posts? I don't, and it's very odd reading something you wrote you've no recollection at all about. Like seeing yourself as others did, X number of years ago.
The trouble with self-hosted blogs is there's no easy friends-list of them to read. And you kinda need feedback to make them seem worth the effort.
So how to I insert multiple images? I was quite surprised when I didn't see an option to open my DW image library when making a post. Maybe I missed something. The blog is no longer for communication, I don't plan to enable commenting even. It's more like an expanded and chronological repository of my work linked to from my main site. Blogging as a form of communication is going for good, I'm afraid. I think I remember all of the posts, but I forget things that I read and watch. A few days ago we watched a movie that only half way through I realized I saw a few years ago.
"So how do I insert multiple images?" One at a time, with thought, so they're a nicely curatored collection of photos and not just an image dump?
"Maybe I missed something." I doubt it. I suspect they're too scared to make adding images easy and intuitive, least doing so becomes too popular! As they're a subscription service, they're not compelled to grow as fast as they can like free services do in the hope of making money when they're hugely popular. I get the feeling they're happy with just supporting the fandom community, as apposed to expanding their user base.
"Blogging as a form of communication is going for good, I'm afraid." I'm not so sure, since micro-blogging (ie. Twitter) could easily be just a part of full-sized blogging. And tumblr.com still seems popular. What happens, I think, is that the different sites seem to attract specific communities. FB or course, being the exception, though some people aren't attracted to it. I've a feeling the likes of Facebook will go the way of TV. Meaning they'll eventually lose out to paid services.
One at a time won't help for that since you decide what to post at the time when you browse full size pictures, and not when you copy the links. I don't know, to me it seems that Tumblr is doomed since Yahoo - or whoever owns it now - can't keep the original spirit. Pinterest and Flickr can also be very useful, but their being specialized makes them kinda redundant. Looking at the people around, FB, Instagram, Youtube, and Twitter seem to be the only things that matter. Though of course there are huge niche communities I don't have any contact with. How do you see FB losing out to paid services? What kind of services? We are free riders In Russia, so here TV is losing out to Youtube and Rutracker.org only.
We originally had just free advert-supported broadcast TV. Then came Sky TV in the 90s, a subscription service. This slowly became a must-have service for many people, mainly due to it cornering live sports. And it's where movies and some series first appear on TV here. And eventually most people seemed to have it, and seemed to be paying around $100 a month for it, depending on which channels they subscribed to. (As I never considered TV worth that, I never subscribed.)
And they had a monopoly with regards to pay-TV here up until about 2015, when streaming services started to appear, with Netflix being the first, I think. And Netflix Premium is currently less than $20 a month, and the competition (such as Amazon Prime) is mostly cheaper, I think. You need decent broadband for it of course, but fibre's now reaching a high percentage of the country, so most have it if they use the net.
And the streaming services are providing real competition to SkyTV in everything other than sport. (And NZ content, but that's mostly still on free-to-air TV.)
The point of all this is that people will pay if a service is seen as good and the free alternative has issues, such as advertising interrupting programmes on TV. And FB has way more issues than just advertising. And its key features are hardly difficult to copy. So there's an opening for someone who wishes to fill it. DW's free+paid-for-extras is one approach, with plenty of others that could be dreamed up.
I don't have any problems with ads on FB, for some reason, although they are literally killing LJ and are a problem for me on Youtube and on Tumblr. I can't imagine what could make me move to - or even try - a FB like site except if my friends moved there, and what would make them do that. It's been theorized that we the common herd ultimately follow the leaders, so if some popular people were moving to a new FB like service, then maybe it would get a chance. But a paid one? That, for one, shuts out huge crowds of people who can't or won't pay. Besides, big companies invest in their platforms in more ways than we can see. For instance, I tried to switch to duckduckgo once after Google started blocking my provider's IP address, but couldn't use it for some usability reason I couldn't put my finger on, and switched back. Ditto for FB: with its awful we-control-what-you-see policy it's still somehow easy to use. Telegram is in a small trend in Russia now, possibly because of the semi-cult status of its creator, but it won't replace Facebook. We have paid TV too, which is usually bundled with broadband Internet.
I've been seriously thinking about giving YouTube the few dollars a month required to get rid of the adverts, which of course I'm really conflicted over! It's not the money - it's who it's going to... Will any of it go to those who actually made the videos? I suspect not, since any who do put their own videos there, make it from adverts, as far as I know. Except for the pay-to-view movies they offer, I guess. But maybe the likes of Vevo get some of it. Maybe it's explained somewhere? Well yes, it is...
So it's possible the makers of videos will get a bit when I look at their videos. I doubt it's much, but then I won't be giving much, will I? Well, US$12.99 a month, I guess. Slightly less conflicted now...
People would move to a paid alternative to FB for the same reason LJ users move here - because LJ keeps pissing people off. Look for 'newbyday' spikes here during 2016 and 2017 for examples...
And because LJ (and FB) are free, you can afford to keep using them while testing the new one. And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think, as those that really care about it are willing to pay to keep it going - and consider the free users are paying too by providing them with content to read.
duckduckgo is better for image searches than Google sometimes, in that it gives you mostly what's relevant to your search and not a lot of stuff that isn't. It keeps improving, but has started to show adverts now. :(
Just looked at Telegram - but the first question they asked for was my phone number, which put me off! Can it have public messages?
$13 is asking a lot. Anyway, I'm quite safe as Youtube Red isn't available in Russia.
*** And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think***
That depends on what features are available to only paid users. That is, you need to be clear whether your network is essentially donationware or paid users get some serious exclusive features, in which case you gonna cripple your platform for most. Also it's still an open question if the model is viable for a network as huge as FB. But I of course agree that an ad-free site has a cleaner feel to it. On the other hand, if you pay for hosting anyway, finding ways to make your stand alone blog connected may be the way to go. No network will let you be as free as a stand-alone. Never searched images on the duck, will give it a try. Telegram has public channels. You subscribe to channels and create your own. I don't know if there's a limit to how many channels you can create, but multiple for sure. Some are bot channels where people can get automatic answers or trigger some automatic actions, but I haven't really looked into it.
***$13 is asking a lot.*** Not compared to pay TV that was about $100! But I've not signed up, deciding it'd make more sense to actually watch the stuff on the two streaming services I'm actually already subscribed too! (Amazon's and CuriosityStream.) My main problem is my TV's not net-connected. But the tablet I have is OK for streaming stuff, which is better than sitting at my desk to watch video.
Assuming the basics are being able to post and have a friends and communities feed, it's reasonable for that I think.
Whether that's a good (economic) model for a FB alternative is hard to say. Technically though, my guess would be that a distributed system would be better than the central server model. Maybe open-source software that would allow you to support X number of users on your own site with the means to communicate with other sites running the same software. Thus no single point of failure, and they could be both paid or free sites.
How to balance the load on a site that has a very popular user would need to be considered though. But that I'm sure is a more-or-less solved problem, probably. Hmmm. Blockchain? [Searches...] https://akasha.world/ :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-08 09:35 am (UTC)It's lovely when you come back here, isn't it? No feeling you're walking through a sea of cotton wool...
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-08 10:04 am (UTC)I will reply to your question on FB soon.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-09 08:47 am (UTC)https://www.dreamwidth.org/file/new
Not as simple as dragging directly to where you're posting, but an image URL is automatically created for embedding in posts, so no harder than inserting YouTube videos, etc.
"makes you realize how much shit you produce..."
:)
Do you remember making all the posts? I don't, and it's very odd reading something you wrote you've no recollection at all about. Like seeing yourself as others did, X number of years ago.
The trouble with self-hosted blogs is there's no easy friends-list of them to read. And you kinda need feedback to make them seem worth the effort.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-09 09:56 am (UTC)The blog is no longer for communication, I don't plan to enable commenting even. It's more like an expanded and chronological repository of my work linked to from my main site. Blogging as a form of communication is going for good, I'm afraid.
I think I remember all of the posts, but I forget things that I read and watch. A few days ago we watched a movie that only half way through I realized I saw a few years ago.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-10 05:37 am (UTC)"Maybe I missed something." I doubt it. I suspect they're too scared to make adding images easy and intuitive, least doing so becomes too popular! As they're a subscription service, they're not compelled to grow as fast as they can like free services do in the hope of making money when they're hugely popular. I get the feeling they're happy with just supporting the fandom community, as apposed to expanding their user base.
"Blogging as a form of communication is going for good, I'm afraid." I'm not so sure, since micro-blogging (ie. Twitter) could easily be just a part of full-sized blogging. And tumblr.com still seems popular. What happens, I think, is that the different sites seem to attract specific communities. FB or course, being the exception, though some people aren't attracted to it. I've a feeling the likes of Facebook will go the way of TV. Meaning they'll eventually lose out to paid services.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-10 06:36 am (UTC)I don't know, to me it seems that Tumblr is doomed since Yahoo - or whoever owns it now - can't keep the original spirit. Pinterest and Flickr can also be very useful, but their being specialized makes them kinda redundant. Looking at the people around, FB, Instagram, Youtube, and Twitter seem to be the only things that matter. Though of course there are huge niche communities I don't have any contact with.
How do you see FB losing out to paid services? What kind of services? We are free riders In Russia, so here TV is losing out to Youtube and Rutracker.org only.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-10 11:02 am (UTC)And they had a monopoly with regards to pay-TV here up until about 2015, when streaming services started to appear, with Netflix being the first, I think. And Netflix Premium is currently less than $20 a month, and the competition (such as Amazon Prime) is mostly cheaper, I think. You need decent broadband for it of course, but fibre's now reaching a high percentage of the country, so most have it if they use the net.
And the streaming services are providing real competition to SkyTV in everything other than sport. (And NZ content, but that's mostly still on free-to-air TV.)
The point of all this is that people will pay if a service is seen as good and the free alternative has issues, such as advertising interrupting programmes on TV. And FB has way more issues than just advertising. And its key features are hardly difficult to copy. So there's an opening for someone who wishes to fill it. DW's free+paid-for-extras is one approach, with plenty of others that could be dreamed up.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-10 11:43 am (UTC)I can't imagine what could make me move to - or even try - a FB like site except if my friends moved there, and what would make them do that. It's been theorized that we the common herd ultimately follow the leaders, so if some popular people were moving to a new FB like service, then maybe it would get a chance. But a paid one? That, for one, shuts out huge crowds of people who can't or won't pay. Besides, big companies invest in their platforms in more ways than we can see. For instance, I tried to switch to duckduckgo once after Google started blocking my provider's IP address, but couldn't use it for some usability reason I couldn't put my finger on, and switched back. Ditto for FB: with its awful we-control-what-you-see policy it's still somehow easy to use. Telegram is in a small trend in Russia now, possibly because of the semi-cult status of its creator, but it won't replace Facebook.
We have paid TV too, which is usually bundled with broadband Internet.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-12 09:06 am (UTC)https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902?hl=en
So it's possible the makers of videos will get a bit when I look at their videos. I doubt it's much, but then I won't be giving much, will I? Well, US$12.99 a month, I guess. Slightly less conflicted now...
People would move to a paid alternative to FB for the same reason LJ users move here - because LJ keeps pissing people off. Look for 'newbyday' spikes here during 2016 and 2017 for examples...
https://www.dreamwidth.org/stats/stats.txt
And because LJ (and FB) are free, you can afford to keep using them while testing the new one. And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think, as those that really care about it are willing to pay to keep it going - and consider the free users are paying too by providing them with content to read.
duckduckgo is better for image searches than Google sometimes, in that it gives you mostly what's relevant to your search and not a lot of stuff that isn't. It keeps improving, but has started to show adverts now. :(
Just looked at Telegram - but the first question they asked for was my phone number, which put me off! Can it have public messages?
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-13 08:12 pm (UTC)*** And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think***
That depends on what features are available to only paid users. That is, you need to be clear whether your network is essentially donationware or paid users get some serious exclusive features, in which case you gonna cripple your platform for most. Also it's still an open question if the model is viable for a network as huge as FB.
But I of course agree that an ad-free site has a cleaner feel to it. On the other hand, if you pay for hosting anyway, finding ways to make your stand alone blog connected may be the way to go. No network will let you be as free as a stand-alone.
Never searched images on the duck, will give it a try.
Telegram has public channels. You subscribe to channels and create your own. I don't know if there's a limit to how many channels you can create, but multiple for sure. Some are bot channels where people can get automatic answers or trigger some automatic actions, but I haven't really looked into it.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-17 08:38 am (UTC)DW's paid features are here...
https://www.dreamwidth.org/support/faqbrowse?faqid=4
Assuming the basics are being able to post and have a friends and communities feed, it's reasonable for that I think.
Whether that's a good (economic) model for a FB alternative is hard to say. Technically though, my guess would be that a distributed system would be better than the central server model. Maybe open-source software that would allow you to support X number of users on your own site with the means to communicate with other sites running the same software. Thus no single point of failure, and they could be both paid or free sites.
How to balance the load on a site that has a very popular user would need to be considered though. But that I'm sure is a more-or-less solved problem, probably. Hmmm. Blockchain? [Searches...] https://akasha.world/ :)
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-25 11:05 am (UTC)https://joinmastodon.org/#how-it-works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)
The 'nothing can be edited or removed' part of blockchains is great for preventing censorship, but not so good for managing your own stuff!
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-08 10:05 am (UTC)