Ask HN: Would you pay for a privacy-first social platform?
7 pointsby sammiej14 hours ago6 comments
  • sequin13 hours ago
    Very, very few people care about privacy to a meaningful degree, even if they (loudly) profess that they do. For communication apps specifically, there's also the network effect problem and having to deal with the increasing proliferation of government speech laws (Online Safety Act and what have you).

    If you just want to make a buck, build a ChatGPT wrapper where people will pay you for the privilege of uploading their deepest secrets and intellectual property to your servers.

    If you're ideologically motivated, forget about the profit motive and go FOSS.

  • elbci13 hours ago
    You are selling ceiling fans to preppers. There are regular ppl who use regular homes with air conditioners (google/telegram/whatsup) and preppers who use underground bunkers with sealed carbon cycle systems and micro-whatever bio-nano filters (mesh radio networks, torrent deaddrop files, whatever p2p solution) and then there's you selling ceiling fans based on the same vulnerable old grid and NSA sensible single point of failure website.
  • toomuchtodo12 hours ago
    I just use iMessages and Signal groups. I am willing to live without the features, what they offer for private groups is sufficient. Shared Apple iCloud albums for photos. Apple also has an Invites app for events management. “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” —- da Vinci

    I do donate monthly to Signal and pay for iCloud, so I suppose the answer is “I am willing to pay, but only these entities.”

  • ares62313 hours ago
    Being hyper connected with family is overrated. A little bit of distance is healthy. Makes the rare reunion more meaningful.
  • bayeslaw14 hours ago
    Asked this here 2 years ago. Answer is: no
    • sammiej14 hours ago
      Thanks for your reply. Curious what the feedback was 2 years ago? Was it "wouldn't use it" or "already exists"?

      The problem I'm trying to solve is different from group messaging: - WhatsApp/Telegram = messaging (1-1, group chats, calls) - This = social platform (feed of posts, photos/videos, chronological timeline, comments)

      Think "Facebook groups but encrypted" not "another messaging app."

      But if HN said "no" to that specific framing, that's valuable to know.

  • mittensc14 hours ago
    that already exists.

    whatsapp/telegram/... groups.

    google photo shares.

    meet ups for matches/beer/...

    • sammiej14 hours ago
      Thanks for your reply. I hear you, but those solve different problems:

      WhatsApp/Telegram groups = messaging (chat interface) Google Photos = photo sharing (no social features) This = social feed (posts with photos/videos, comments, reactions, chronological timeline)

      The gap: If I want my family across 3 countries to see updates (like Facebook), but don't trust Meta with the data, what do I use?

      WhatsApp groups scroll too fast, Google Photos has no conversation features, Telegram isn't E2E by default.

      But if you're saying "the market doesn't care about that gap," that's exactly what I'm trying to validate.

      • mittensc11 hours ago
        > The gap: If I want my family across 3 countries to see updates (like Facebook), but don't trust Meta with the data, what do I use?

        Google photos, shared album?

        Any messager group so people just chat.

        Talk to them directly?

        I'm not sure what another social network would bring... I'm not exactly using any of the existing ones anymore anyway.

        good luck either way.