Alternatives To Facebook

[gleninjersey 2,141]

What are some services similar to Facebook that people are using and like?

I use FB to manly stay in contact with family and friends who are far away.  I don't use it as a news source, which apparently many do.

So are there any other social media platforms that you are using that you feel provide a viable alternative to Facebook?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Alternatives to facebook.  

Anything that requires human contact.

[Howard 538]

There are no true alternatives.  Google tried but theirs is mostly a failure.  That is why the government should step in and regulate Facebook like a monopoly - it is more of a monopoly than AT&T ever was.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

1 hour ago, gleninjersey said:

What are some services similar to Facebook that people are using and like?

I use FB to manly stay in contact with family and friends who are far away.  I don't use it as a news source, which apparently many do.

So are there any other social media platforms that you are using that you feel provide a viable alternative to Facebook?

and many that post "news" on farcebook get that from the likes of twitter.

[Displaced Texan 11,747]

You’re on the 2A friendly version of FB. Other than this and a couple of other forum sites, that’s as close to social media as I get. No FB, Instagram, Twitter, etc for me. 

[WP22 1,558]

2 hours ago, Howard said:

There are no true alternatives.  Google tried but theirs is mostly a failure.  That is why the government should step in and regulate Facebook like a monopoly - it is more of a monopoly than AT&T ever was.

Absolutely not. Let the market deal with them. If enough people become dissatisfied with them, an alternative will emerge.

Once the gov makes it a monopoly, the gov will have a primary interest in preventing other platforms to emerging. That's the angle the Zuck is playing by asking for gov regulations; he'll trade some regulations that he can influence via donations for having a monopoly. He's rent seeking; he wants to be the next PSE&G. He want the gov to make it so prohibitively expensive in money and regulation for a viable competition to emerge.

Ask yourself how many cable co's are available to you? Electrical? Gas? And why?

On the other hand, how many gas stations from different oil companies exist in your area?

 

 

O

[fishnut 2,358]

I just text or call people. I've never had any social media. This site is as close as I come

[gleninjersey 2,141]

There are alternatives out there.  From the five or ten minutes I looked into it those other alternatives aren't nearly as popular or are more niche orientated.

 

[JimB1 554]

Yeah, it’s called njgunforums, get all your friends and family to sign up

-Jim

[Howard 538]

21 hours ago, WP22 said:

Absolutely not. Let the market deal with them. If enough people become dissatisfied with them, an alternative will emerge.

Once the gov makes it a monopoly, the gov will have a primary interest in preventing other platforms to emerging. That's the angle the Zuck is playing by asking for gov regulations; he'll trade some regulations that he can influence via donations for having a monopoly. He's rent seeking; he wants to be the next PSE&G. He want the gov to make it so prohibitively expensive in money and regulation for a viable competition to emerge.

Ask yourself how many cable co's are available to you? Electrical? Gas? And why?

On the other hand, how many gas stations from different oil companies exist in your area?

 

 

O

Sorry but we agree to not agree on this.  Once a company becomes as dominant as Facebook it is almost impossible for anyone else to effectively compete.  Look at the failure of Google and Microsoft to compete against FB.  If they can't do it in a meaningful way it is highly unlikely that anyone can.  FB is just too large at this point.  

Technology has changed you argument on the other companies as well.  In most areas there are almost unlimited "cable" companies.  While most areas only have one physical cable company (some have two or three) they now compete against FiOS, Satellite, Internet and shortly 5G cellular.  I dropped Cable TV over a year ago and still get all my TV stations and for less money than cable.  As for gas stations you are somewhat kidding yourself.  You do realize that in Northern NJ almost all the gasoline comes out of just one refinery.  When you go to an intersection that has four different branded stations you usually notice they all have the exact same price too.

[WP22 1,558]

That's the thing, they are not cable companies; you are making my point. They are competitive technologies that provide you with about the same content with some customization that you used to get from the cable companies. That's what happens when the cable companies suck.

Once FB is regulated, guess who dictates what content is appropriate? It's not going to be FB anymore.

While I understand the calls for regulation because the conservative/libertarian speech is being suppressed but you have a much better chance to fight against a private company than against a gov agency.

Case in point, FB deemed Diamond and Silk's page  unsafe for the community. Due to public pressure FB reversed that decision. It would have taken many thousands of dollars and many years for the same happen if the gov was in charge. 

Do want you see what happens when the gov is in charge? Look at the story of of the Klaus Renft Combo, East Germany's most popular band.. until the gov decided it wasn't allowed to exist.

See, this band, while pushing the boundaries, was deemed safe by the state -not the state like them but tolerated them- but it had to apply for a license to be able to perform. Until one time in 1975 they didn't even have a chance to apply; the band was informed they didn't exist anymore; their music was never again played on the radio. The only recording company in the country reprinted their entire catalog so they could be erased. Just like that they ceased to exist. Who could they appeal to? See where I'm going?

In Romania a band called Transylvania Phoenix bears a similar story.

The left has been shrinking the window of what's acceptable speech. Their latest attacks on the NRA are just another step on that process. The goal is to equate membership on the NRA as the same as membership on the KKK. On the ever moving of the goal posts, soon enough, mainstream ideas like, gun ownership, pro-life, against gay marriage...will deemed unacceptable. It will be a sad day when co's like FB, youtube, twiter...have the full force of the gov to enforce those new rules.

More than ever we need a strong 1A free of gov intervention. It's our only change

We've seen the mess the gov has made regulating the 2A, do we really want their hands on the 1A?

The first warning shots have been fired

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/it-begins-california-senator-introduces-bill-to-kill-free-speech-requires-state-sanctioned-fact-checkers-to-approve-online-content/

Not me, I'll take my chances with the private sector anytime.

But I'm cool with agreeing to disagree

 

[Lambo2936 297]

1 hour ago, Howard said:

Sorry but we agree to not agree on this.  Once a company becomes as dominant as Facebook it is almost impossible for anyone else to effectively compete.  Look at the failure of Google and Microsoft to compete against FB.  If they can't do it in a meaningful way it is highly unlikely that anyone can.  FB is just too large at this point.  
 

This is what makes it appealing, though. Nobody would be on facebook if, well, nobody was on facebook. When its large enough that almost everyone you know is on there, it makes it far more appealing. Thats the only reason im on there other than to shut up my anti-2A former classmates. I can keep in touch with my family in Israel and throughout the US.

Theres Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and there WAS myspace (dont think people still use the last one). They arent precisely like facebook but still huge among us younger people. I personally dont use them anymore at all.

 

[MartyZ 692]

I personally don't understand all the appeal of social media. I actually see it as an invasion of privacy. You want an alternative to facebook? How about face to face or making a phone call to a friend, a REAL friend and not one of thousands of followers who you don't know. I have a facebook account, and only for 2 things, saving my phone game data, and sharing large videos with my REAL friends, friends I see and talk to on a daily basis. If you want news, you can use any of hundreds of news outlets available.

Even on this board, if you notice I don't share any personal data other then photo's of my toys. At least not until I meet members in real life. Because even on here, you don't really know who you are talking to until you meet face to face. 

[Sniper 6,372]

3 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

I actually see it as an invasion of privacy.  I have a facebook account, and only for 2 things, saving my phone game data, and sharing large videos with my REAL friends, friends I see and talk to on a daily basis.

If you have the Facebook app on your phone, EVERYTHING you've ever searched, looked up, texts, contact lists, phone calls, other apps and every button push you've done on your phone has been captured by Facebook.

How do you like that invasion of privacy?

[Sniper 6,372]

On 4/9/2018 at 8:30 AM, Howard said:

There are no true alternatives.  Google tried but theirs is mostly a failure.  That is why the government should step in and regulate Facebook like a monopoly - it is more of a monopoly than AT&T ever was.

It's not a monopoly when users VOLUNTARILY submit and share all their personal information on the site. Users have a choice to participate or not.

[MartyZ 692]

1 minute ago, Sniper22 said:

If you have the Facebook app on your phone, EVERYTHING you've ever searched, looked up, texts, contact lists, phone calls, other apps and every button push you've done on your phone has been captured by Facebook.

How do you like that invasion of privacy?

I understand that, i'm talking about people, not FB corporate meta data geeks. When I say invasion of privacy I mean every joe shmo out there seeing pictures of you, your family, knowing where you live, knowing what you had for dinner and how it looked like when it came out, and so on.

[Zeke 5,504]

3 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

It's not a monopoly when users VOLUNTARILY submit and share all their personal information on the site. Users have a choice to participate or not.

KNOWINGLY 

[Zeke 5,504]

[Sniper 6,372]

7 minutes ago, Zeke said:

KNOWINGLY 

Exactly!!

If FB users actually went and looked at the Permissions they granted the app, then went and downloaded their history, they would be absolutely amazed at what personal information FB "vacuumed" from their phones.

They're not called "sheep" for no reason.

Then, go look at what Google has "vacuumed", and they would smash their phones with a hammer.

But, but, but, "I have to stay in contact with my friends"....... and watch cat videos on Youtube.....

Geeze...

[Howard 538]

14 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

It's not a monopoly when users VOLUNTARILY submit and share all their personal information on the site. Users have a choice to participate or not.

Then the electric company and cable company are not monopolies if people willingly buy the product and pay for it - all three are false.  It is an effective monopoly.  Yes there are other social media suppliers but all supply an inferior product because FB has 90+ percent of the market.  Once a company gets to be a certain size their is no longer free competition and we need the government to impose some form of regulation.  I know, regulation is bad; but at some point it is needed.  Imagine if one company controlled 90+% of the gas stations and charged a lower price and had other special incentives to get you to buy from them.  Sure you could drive far away to deal with the other smaller supplier, but would you.  Especially if they often did not have gas in the tanks and you could not find out until you went there.

[MartyZ 692]

1 minute ago, Sniper22 said:

Exactly!!

If FB users actually went and looked at the Permissions they granted the app, then went and downloaded their history, they would be absolutely amazed at what personal information FB "vacuumed" from their phones.

They're not called "sheep" for no reason.

Then, go look at what Google has "vacuumed", and they would smash their phones with a hammer.

But, but, but, "I have to stay in contact with my friends"....... and watch cat videos on Youtube.....

Geeze...

I actually did go thru the options in the app and turned off ALL permissions.

[MartyZ 692]

1 minute ago, Howard said:

Then the electric company and cable company are not monopolies if people willingly buy the product and pay for it - all three are false.  It is an effective monopoly.  Yes there are other social media suppliers but all supply an inferior product because FB has 90+ percent of the market.  Once a company gets to be a certain size their is no longer free competition and we need the government to impose some form of regulation.  I know, regulation is bad; but at some point it is needed.  Imagine if one company controlled 90+% of the gas stations and charged a lower price and had other special incentives to get you to buy from them.  Sure you could drive far away to deal with the other smaller supplier, but would you.  Especially if they often did not have gas in the tanks and you could not find out until you went there.

wasn't this an issue with Microsoft years ago, including internet explorer for free in Windows installs, killing netscape? Or something to that nature.

[Zeke 5,504]

I don’t think the comparative between the intronet and food, fuel, Fire, water is a valid argument. You can survive without intronet.

[MartyZ 692]

2 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I don’t think the comparative between the intronet and food, fuel, Fire, water is a valid argument. You can survive without intronet.

Lol, tell that to my kids. They would rather be on the internet then eat. How pathetic our society has become!!!

[Howard 538]

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

I don’t think the comparative between the intronet and food, fuel, Fire, water is a valid argument. You can survive without intronet.

Actually that is questionable if you can "survive" without internet these days.  Well you would not be here claiming you could survive if you did not have it.

As to someone else's comment about how much FB knows about it is worse than most people think.  Not that long ago I took a picture in PA on my DSLR that has no geotagging.  I used software on my computer to edit it and then posted the picture on FB from my home computer (here in New Jermany).  FB wanted to confirm that this picture was taken in a spot in PA.  I was shocked until I figured out how they did this.  My phone was with me when I took the picture so they linked the time stamp on the picture with the phone which had my location at that moment.  Kind of creepy.  Even if you tell FB and Google not to track you they do it through your friends that say it is ok to monitor their contacts of which you are one.  You have no control of FB.

[Sniper 6,372]

15 minutes ago, Howard said:

You have no control of FB.

So, why use it then?

 

Has anyone here actually logged into their FB account and downloaded their history yet to see all the personal details they have siphoned off of your phones and personal life?

 

[Zeke 5,504]

I deleted my Facebook account about 8 yrs ago.

[Sniper 6,372]

42 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

I actually did go thru the options in the app and turned off ALL permissions.

Have you actually gone into your phone's actual settings, and not directly from the app:

Settings, then Apps, then Facebook, the App info and look to see what permissions are still being allowed?

The window should look something like this, not the settings panel in the app itself:

 

Changing a few settings from inside the app doesn't stop it all.

[MartyZ 692]

[Howard 538]

15 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

So, why use it then?

 

Has anyone here actually logged into their FB account and downloaded their history yet to see all the personal details they have siphoned off of your phones and personal life?

 

I was just talking about observations, I really could care less what they think they know about me.  I actually don't use my real name their and have told them I am something like 90 years old as well.  These days just about everything about you is in some database somewhere.  There are companies that aggregate this and sell it for fees - you can't control it.  In Times Square in NYC there are electronic billboards that ping cell phones to see what phones are around and then use databases to know things about those people and then flash ads based on the phones in the area.  1984 is here in spades.