Slow social media

Attention, Incentives, and “Recommendation Media”

• Several comments frame attention as a de facto currency: likes, views, shares, and followers function like money without any “central bank.”
• For‑profit platforms are seen as inevitably drifting toward engagement‑maximizing recommendation feeds, regardless of initial mission.
• Some argue you can have healthy for‑profit social media only if the “attention economy” is either demonetized or tightly regulated/re‑monetized with limits on how much attention can be given/received.

Regulation vs Personal Responsibility

• Many see meaningful reform as impossible without government intervention (e.g., bans on recommender feeds, restrictions on non‑personal accounts, school smartphone bans).
• Others object to paternalism, preferring education and parental responsibility, but are challenged that unpriced social harms justify regulation.
• Comparisons are drawn to newspaper regulation and libel law; some argue platforms shouldn’t be allowed to broadcast anything at scale with zero liability.

Desired Properties of Slow Social Media

• Common wishes:
  • Chronological feeds with a hard end (no infinite scroll).
  • Small, private groups; invite‑only or mutual following.
  • Caps on friends/followers and on posts per day; possibly mandatory “cost” in time or friction per post.
  • No or hidden like counts; limited or disabled forwarding; comments opt‑in.
• Some want to outlaw or severely limit algorithmic feeds and commercial/brand accounts, though others note that would kill mainstream appeal.

Existing and Historical Alternatives

• Many say the article is reinventing or echoing: LiveJournal, Tumblr, Path, Friendster, early Facebook, regional networks (e.g., iWiW, Tuenti), phpBB forums, BBSes.
• Current “slow” substitutes cited: WhatsApp/Signal/Telegram groups, iMessage and shared photo albums, Discord servers, Goodreads, Strava, BeReal, Slowly, niche fediverse platforms (Mastodon, Lemmy, Friendica), and experimental projects (Minus, Seven39, Peergos, Haven, micro.blog, mood.site, tootik, twtxt).
• A recurring pattern: services that embody these ideas either remain small, drift toward engagement features, or die when they fail to scale.

Network Effects, Protocols, and Small Federations

• Many emphasize network effects and distrust after Facebook/Twitter/Reddit as the main blockers; people won’t move where their friends aren’t.
• Open protocols (XMPP, Matrix, nostr, fediverse) are promoted as solutions, but criticized for UX friction and lack of critical mass; big companies have strong incentives to keep ecosystems closed.
• Some foresee a future of many small, private, possibly AI‑assisted networks tailored to families, clubs, or communities rather than one dominant global feed.

Weak Ties and Parasocial Concerns

• There is disagreement over following distant acquaintances: some value passive updates for rekindling or contextualizing relationships; others see it as parasocial voyeurism that displaces real interaction and fuels unhealthy comparison.
• Several note a cultural shift: normal people share less publicly; influencers and semi‑professionals dominate, while private group chats now carry most “real” social life.