Ask HN: Would anyone pay for a social network with no ads or data harvesting?

Most large social networks rely on advertising and data collection, which pushes them toward algorithms, engagement optimization, and scale at all costs.

I keep seeing complaints about this, but usage rarely changes. A lot of past attempts at “better” social networks seem to stall despite good intentions.

I am curious how people here think about this:

Would a small, paid social network focused on existing relationships have any realistic chance of adoption, or do network effects and user behavior make this fundamentally unworkable?

If you think it fails, what tends to be the real blocker: pricing, lack of novelty, switching costs, or something else?

I am looking for reasons this does not work, not encouragement.

4 points | by neilfd 3 hours ago

11 comments

  • psychoslave 25 minutes ago
    That's a difficult endeavor. First network effect plays agaisnt any new player. Second, established actors have already mastered all the arts of dark patterns to make people addicted to their crap. Paying for crap free alternatives can't be a garantee that policy won't change as incentives will change over time for the business behind it. Those who care for distributed FLOW solutions already have out of the box solutions, though polishing them into turn key options is certainly letting plenty of room for additional players.

    Good luck!

  • Bender 3 hours ago
    - How would one prove that no data harvesting is taking place or would not take place after the sale of the company? a.k.a. bait and switch

    - What is the business model? Subscriptions will not pay for the initial OpEx / CapEx investment. How will investors make a profit?

    - How will your company lure people away from the other big platforms that all their friends and coworkers are on? What are the incentives beyond promises of no data collection? Most people no longer accept good-faith promises any more as greedy people have emptied that bucket.

  • dtagames 2 hours ago
    It already exists in the form of Discord and Slack. Folks looking for a generic community need that community to exist en masse before they sign up. This is the problem dating apps have. No one is interested in joining because no one is in there.

    Semi-private social apps that are invite only (like a company's Slack channels) or require discovery (like a game's Discord) have made lots of money and neither of those companies uses ads.

  • Guestmodinfo 3 hours ago
    There is a place for everything under the sun. Yes people will pay for it. If you can assure that: 1. Till 2036 it will be definitely be online. 2. It will be not an echo chamber. People are needed to manage this. You need to hire a wide mix of people from various geographic locations for this. It's doable but certainly not for a single person. Some organization like Mozilla should do this initiative. 3. You can ask for monthly payment of 5$ 4. You can think of other things
  • matt_s 1 hour ago
    It’s fundamentally not viable in the sense of mass adoption. Security conscious and tech nerds (like HN audience) might do it but mass adoption, aka crossing the chasm from early adopters and onwards, isn’t feasible because all the aunts, uncles and grandma’s out there aren’t going to pay for it or switch.

    If those user types haven’t moved en masse off twitter to <insert some replacement> then what would compel people to move, and pay for something they don’t pay for with money?

    If by existing relationships you mean only like 2 degrees of separation then its implied that there is no global posting, no viral capability and probably no businesses or politicians on it (all amazing features I would love). Basically a family and friends network. A huge difficulty would be how to price it, one time fee for a family tree? The largest costs are going to be bandwidth and storage. If you go no video/images then what pulls people in?

    Company structure might be key too. If it’s built as employee owned and operated with a small profit goal, it might take longer to grow but odds are enshitification or corrupt management can be avoided.

    [-]
    • neilfd 1 hour ago
      My early thoughts on pricing are that the free version allows you to keep a rolling 30 day window of content, it is built to encourage you to post every day, recording your life, with some soft journalling, phot prompts etc, so 30 days gives you a month free. on day 31, you can no longer access the 1st days content, day 32, 1st and 2nd days content is faded, subscription allows you access to your whole timeline, if you unsub, the 30 day window cuts back in. Subscription allows you access to everything - £2-4 a month is what im thinking. Might be dumb, might not be
  • wojciii 2 hours ago
    I would pay for use of decentralised apps which depend on some resources that cost money, for example an index that would make them much faster to find something.
  • neilfd 3 hours ago
    Great feedback - i take the point on verification on data harvesting, any ideas on solving that?

    I think subscriptions could work, people pay not to have ads in other media they consume, ive built a prototype platform, that allows users to curate their life in it, part social network, part journal, part support. i want to also build in safety features for children so parents feel safe letting their children online. would love some feedback on the premise.

    [-]
    • Guestmodinfo 2 hours ago
      Children shouldn't be on social network. They will gain nothing. Rather they should be encouraged to join local friends in playgrounds or local hobby clubs or local vocational things, anything local is fine. Even video games, books or films (safe for kids)are fine too if they have no local clubs or groups accessible
    • colesantiago 3 hours ago
      > i want to also build in safety features for children so parents feel safe letting their children online. would love some feedback on the premise.

      How would you handle the ever changing online safety act in the UK and Australia now that there is now needed regulation in place for social networks with more countries to follow?

  • pell 2 hours ago
    It’s a complicated question nowadays as the first generation of networks that were really all about networking have mostly died out or morphed into algorithmic feeds. So the question is whether there’s a market for this classical networking at all. If so for a network to make sense you do need networking effects of some kind as people would likely not want to pay to be registered to a service that shows them having 0 friends. I do think it’s a difficult bet.

    I can however see this for niches and small groups. Something more akin to old school bulletin board forums. In a sense Metafilter works a bit that way already.

    [-]
    • neilfd 2 hours ago
      That distinction resonates.

      If you assume the unit of value is a pre-existing group rather than an individual user, do you think paid access becomes viable earlier, or does it introduce different failure modes?

      I’m interested in whether group-first adoption meaningfully changes the cold start problem, or simply moves it?

  • neilfd 1 hour ago
    if anyone would like to look at he prototype, feel free my-mosaic.me
  • colesantiago 3 hours ago
    Who would want to pay for a social network?

    I don't pay for X or any other social network.

    Perhaps donations could work instead?

    [-]
    • falcor84 3 hours ago
      It is not uncommon to pay for access to in-person social clubs and other third places, so I don't see an inherent barrier. Indeed, these can be considered Veblen goods, whereby you my may want to pay to have access to a place that keeps those who can't pay out. We see some of that on "elite" dating apps, so why not on a more general social network?