Wikipedia's Co-Founder Takes On Facebook With Ad-Free Social Network

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has launched a social network called WT:Social. It has no financial association with Wikipedia and operates on donations, not advertising. The Next Web reports: WT:Social went live last month and is currently nearing 50,000 users. The company is rolling out access slowly; when I signed up, I was approximately number 28,000 on the waitlist. Alternatively, you can pay 13 bucks a month or 100 a year to get access right away.

In comments to the Financial Times, Wales said "The business model of social media companies, of pure advertising, is problematic. It turns out the huge winner is low-quality content." You don't say. WT:Social's interface is rather sparse at the moment, featuring a simple feed comprised of news stories and comments below them. News is a big part of the network; it's a spinoff of Wales' previous project, WikiTribune, which sought to be a global news site comprised of professional journalists and citizen contributors. Both WikiTribune and WT:Social emphasize combatting fake news, highlighting evidence-based coverage over the focus on "engagement" seen on other networks. Each story posted to the network makes prominent where the article comes from, as well as sources and references.

You can also join various "SubWikis" that are essentially like Facebook groups or subreddits, which filter content to stories of a given topic. You can also add hashtags to a post or follow hashtags for more specific interests that might span more than one SubWiki. Posts are currently sorted chronologically, but the site plans to add an upvote system for users to promote quality stories.

Good luck

[walterbyrd]

Problem with a new social network is that all your friends and family are on the old social network. You are not going to move until they move. And they are not going to move until you move.

Re:Good luck

[110010001000]

That is why you get rid of them and choose new family and friends from the new social network.

Re:Good luck

[Jimmy Wales]

I know you're being sarcastic, but that's kind of what we're betting on here. Join and find some new friends. Nobody is going to make you leave Facebook. Thank you all for your support!

By the way, what's up with all the swastikas on this site?

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not sure about the swastikas.

Bullshit. It's users like you who made the nazis and swastika spammers think they'd be welcome around here. It's on your doorstep. bub.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

but that's kind of what we're betting on here. Join and find some new friends. Nobody is going to make you leave Facebook.

I wish you success. There is a crying need for better social media.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Ignore the swastikas. They just make good moderators waste mod points on them so they don't have as many to spend modding up good comments or undoing bad moderation.

Re:

[scottrocket]

Ignore the swastikas. They just make good moderators waste mod points on them so they don't have as many to spend modding up good comments or undoing bad moderation.

I've been using the "flag" field a lot, in the lower right of the offenders post for awhile now ("Flag this comment as Inappropriate"). Not sure how effective it is, but it gives me something to do, and it saves my mod points for "upmodding", as per original Taco recommendation.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

That's a good idea. I do wonder if it makes any difference but it's better than wasting mod points.

Re:

[ThatGype]

By the way, what's up with all the swastikas on this site?

Inform Lord Wales: 4Chan has arrived.

Re:

[AleRunner]

I start on it and I come to a sign up page without context and without a privacy policy. There is nothing inviting. So I've signed up with a fake account and a spare gmail account (I'd probably do that anyway) and now I'm wait listed. I don't think that many people are going to sign up based on this status. Primarily those with a visceral hatred of Facebook. I only really got one chance to see names of the sub-wikis available and little to really attract. All looked a bit geek/nerd but I'm not sure t

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

That's what I did a couple of years back. My new friends are a lot younger, prettier, more shaggable and eager than my old friends. Totally worth the effort, it seems I'm saving a lot on Viagra and maintenance.

I wouldn't want to join...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a social network that would have meas a member.

Re:

[locater16]

Only a problem for older people. Sure, your 55 year old aunt is still on Facebook. But anyone about 40 or younger should have an excellent probability of being well familiar with how easy and simple it is to sign up for any given online service.

Re:

[az-saguaro]

You could have said the same thing about AOL or Yahoo-Geocities and then MySpace and the Facebook. People tire of the old platform and move on, or a newer generation adopts whatever is trendy and stimulates interest across the board. The migration might start slow, but ramps up if the new service gets positive buzz. No question that Facebook is heavily entrenched at the moment, but it got that way in part by unsavory activities, and plenty of people would bail if there was an excuse. So, some people try

Re:

[srichard25]

Don't tell anyone, but it is possible to split your time on more than 1 social network.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

It will be extra hard to get them to move if they have to pay. Inviting them to a free network is one thing, inviting them to a paid one is socially awkward and likely to fail.

Re:

[AmericaRunsOnDunkin]

Problem with a new social network is that all your friends and family are on the old social network.

Correction: The problem with an old social network is that all my family are on it.

I can always make new friends. Ditching family is an incredible value proposition. Where do I sign up?

Re:

[AxisOfPleasure]

Bingo!

Starting a new social network in 2019 is like trying to set up a new department store with Amazon about! Sorry Jimmy, your network will be a ghost town in year and dead within 18 months, just ask Google. Even the mighty Google couldn't compete with established names like FB, Insta and Twitter.

Re:

[shess]

Problem with a new social network is that all your friends and family are on the old social network. You are not going to move until they move. And they are not going to move until you move.

The main thing I miss about Google+ is that most of my family wasn't on there. I could ask my crowd technical questions without drawing responses like "Scott, I don't even understand the question", as if I had called my aunt (or whoever) on the phone and directly asked her the question.

News is a big part of the network...

[Kernel Kurtz]

Why?

I rarely use FB, but when I do it is to keep in touch with a handful of friends and family. The only news I want from that platform is news about them that they themselves post. A social network is a fine idea, but it is the last place I would go for general news, gaming, or other entertainment.

Re:News is a big part of the network...

[Cipheron]

Uh, if they just made a "better FB" that would be dumb. People stick with FB *because* their friends and family are using it. Why would they replicate that? It makes sense to focus on something *different* and build up a community around that, so building a news-focused ecosystem is reasonable. It's more comparable to Reddit from the sound of it.

Re:News is a big part of the network...

[Kernel Kurtz]

Uh, if they just made a "better FB" that would be dumb.

I for one would welcome a better FB. One without all the bullshit except the social connection part. Granted there probably would be no money in that. People would miss Farmville or whatever.

It makes sense to focus on something *different* and build up a community around that, so building a news-focused ecosystem is reasonable.

Doesn't sound very different to me, except their news will be ostensibly less fake.

Re:

[AHuxley]

NATO, NGO groups, think tanks, nations, cults, faith groups, Communists, the US gov all want to push their news.
Even when "paying" per year and month for a censorship free social media as a service, they still want to push "news".
How about just networking the social media for that cost?
Let people who pay for the service find and share their own news, links, funny memes, art, jokes, movie reviews...
$100 should buy some freedom from the US gov, NATO, Communists...

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

How about just networking the social media for that cost?

I much rather see a full-blown NATO-"Communist" (where do you even get "Communists" these days?) Internet propaganda war than a feed full of the drivel about "life" of some random idiots an acquaintance may or may not know.

The main reason I quit Twatter a few years back was that it subverted my feed with shit people "liked" and with motivational advice from itself - "follow these people", "look what you're missing" and so on.

Fuck your pathetic abuse o

Re:

[AHuxley]

Now we have to pay for content, the use of a network and to get censorship over every link, comment, word, cartoon.
With helpings of NATO content... per month.
Pay for the ads too...

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

Ads? What ads?

Re:

[sad_]

that was very much the original idea of social networks, these days that is no longer true.
as multiple reports/studies show that people do use it for their daily news, it's how 'fake news' became a thing.

Site name

[enriquevagu]

The site will probably fail, given the outcome of previous attempts to take on Facebook (but hey, the idea is great and it is good that he tries). But in this case, the name will be probably one of the main factors for failure. He is still on time to change it!

Re:

[Cipheron]

The prime focus on news content is probably because they recognize that just trying to make a new FB would fail. A news-focused site doesn't need the same economy of scale to succeed.

Re:

[thereitis]

People like me who have left Facebook because of all their idiocy will be all over this.

Next I'm hoping for a YouTube replacement. I wonder why none of the other big players have taken on such a service?

Re:

[110010001000]

It is unknown if YouTube is even profitable. It would take a very large investment to build a service like that.

Re:

[DNS-and-BIND]

YouTube replacements: https://d.tube [d.tube]

https://www.bitchute.com/ [bitchute.com]

https://www.liveleak.com/ [liveleak.com] LiveLeak has long been known as the anti-Youtube and takes content that would immediately get removed by Youtube. Lots of interesting content from individual people, kind of like what YouTube was like before it went commercial. It also means off-duty Brazilian police officers administering instant justice, car wrecks, China horrors, and suchlike.

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

LiveLeak was much better when it was Rotten.com. The content quality has worsened a lot since.

Re:

[paralumina01]

It was ogrish, and yes, the quality has subsided dramatically. In the past two years they've disabled reading comments for lurkers and integrated facebook as their comment system. Their moderation has also gotten worse.

Re:

[NewtonsLaw]

I signed up, only to find that I can't post anything until I reach the top of a "waiting list" or pay money.

Extortion -- this isn't how the internet was built nor is it the way it should run.

I'm always happy to make voluntary donations but I object strongly to having a gun held to my head in this way.

My membership lasted 3 minutes, goodbye wt.social!

Re:

[coofercat]

I dunno... Nextdoor seems to get plenty of traffic (at least in my area - just mention that your bin didn't get emptied and you'll get a 1000 comments). Linkedin also seems to be doing quite well.

It seems there is room for other social media, although it remains to be seen if anyone can make the same "general purpose" thing that FB seems to want to be.

Well OK then

[DNS-and-BIND]

I was going to ask their attitude on free speech, but he says himself "The business model of social media companies, of pure advertising, is problematic. It turns out the huge winner is low-quality content." That problematic keyword is a huge SJW giveaway. This is just going to be another heavily censored social network. Quite enough of those around already. Try something like Saidit.net [saidit.net], an up-and-coming Reddit clone. It's still in the "land rush" phase where people are creating new subforums all the time and you can get to know contributors by name.

Re:

[paralumina01]

saidit

Is it as bad as voat and reddit regarding hugboxes and safe spaces and downvotes to silence dissenting opinion?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nope, they deliberately removed the downvote button for that reason. There are only upvotes, and a second kind of upvote that means "funny". Lots of people screamed about it but the admins didn't budge. Good admins.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Slashdot would be better if there were no down mods. Let it be a marketplace of ideas, not a mod war battleground.

Re: Well OK then

[AddisonEzekiel]

Well one way to test how problematic it is, would to jump on and try the various triggers of free speach. Pick a topic or two and see if you get banned for hate speach. I think I'll try that right now.

No Anonymity

[Kunedog]

The main (sign-up) page immediately asks for first and last name, so I assume you can't be anonymous or pseudonymous . . . not a good first impression. Score one point for Reddit and Twitter against WT:Social (terrible name). Think they're any better than the rest when it comes to political censorship?

Re:

[110010001000]

How is "Kune Dog" any less anonymous than "kunedog"?

Re:

[koavf]

There's no reason to assume that you can't be pseudonymous. See https://wt.social/about-us [wt.social]

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with all of these services is that you need to "join" at all. Social networks should be built on decentralized open protocols, with direct connection to your peers; your "account" should be little more than a public key. If the service exists beyond a login page, you can expect no privacy, filtering/censorship, and the possibility of access being revoked upon a whim.

Re:

[ctilsie242]

After you join, they lead you to one of the most lovely "pay us cash or wait with the other schmucks" page I've ever seen. Even more amusing, they have no two factor authentication.

Guess I may not be back. First impressions are everything, and the impression I have so far isn't very great. Don't dump people into a holding bin, either just not have signups, or invite only stuff, and don't ask for an expensive subscription on the second page without at least showing it might be used for something.

I already don't bother to use Diaspora

[drinkypoo]

Why would I want to join another social network I won't use?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Robert Goatse]

You're absolutely right with the waste of time part. Who really gives a crap if somebody is pretending to be you? Do you create accounts on every social network site that comes along just to prevent this? Man, you need a hobby.

Transfer all the Google+ accounts

[jfdavis668]

That way they will have plenty of users to ignore this service, too.

confused

[AndyKron]

Woot! I'm only 36232 users away from awesomeness. I guess I'll just forget about it until then, maybe forever.

Re:

[Gonoff]

As an idea of growth, I am number 44934!

COSTS $12.99 FOR AN ACCOUNT!

[phreakngeek]

WT:Social charges $12.99 to simply create an account and it isn't a one-time fee! You can't even try it! When you get to the end of creating an account WT:Social asks for a subscription fee of $12.99/month or $100/year via credit card or Paypal. The subscription price is not an optional donation, a suggestion, or payment for special or additional services. Payment is required! I've seen and heard a lot of bad ideas in my time but this is the worst idea I've seen in a while. The inventor, Jimmy Wales, doesn't seem to have close friends or family member who are capable or comfortable being honest with him about his terrible idea. The average person cares more about money than they care about their private data. So who is the target demographic? Rich paranoid people who want to both share and protect data and like to gamble on new website ideas? Really? I can't think of anyone who would want to spend $12.99 a month to gamble on a hokey website in the hope that it will be successful and will also protect their data.

Re:

[jfdavis668]

But wait! There's more...each user gets their own personal Wikipedia page complete with all your relevent information.

Re:COSTS $12.99 FOR AN ACCOUNT!

[religionofpeas]

And if they think you're a "bad actor" you will be removed.

No thanks.

Re:

[organgtool]

What the hell does the quality of my acting skills have to do with using their social media site?

Re:

[Rambo]

WT:Social charges $12.99 to simply create an account and it isn't a one-time fee! You can't even try it! When you get to the end of creating an account WT:Social asks for a subscription fee of $12.99/month or $100/year via credit card or Paypal. The subscription price is not an optional donation, a suggestion, or payment for special or additional services. Payment is required! ...

I'm confused, I went over to the site, entered the info for a new account and... I'm in. I can see the articles the links for creating new articles or sub-wikis are enabled, it all appears to be working. There was never a request for payment. Maybe Jimmy has decided to let people try it out for a month before pleading for a subscription?
In terms of content it's pretty sparse at the moment, lots of sub-wikis but very few actual posts, quite a few foreign-language wikis. I'm sure once the word gets out t

Re:

[Translation Error]

Are you sure? Right in the summary it says this subscription is an option if you want to skip the waiting list:

WT:Social went live last month and is currently nearing 50,000 users. The company is rolling out access slowly; when I signed up, I was approximately number 28,000 on the waitlist. Alternatively, you can pay 13 bucks a month or 100 a year to get access right away.

Re:

[Daralantan]

Funny. I wanted to post a comment asking if they will regularly run banner ads that take up 33% of the screen, begging you to donate as much as possible to wave Wikibook.

Re:

[trickstertom]

...or $100 for a year. At first I bristled, then remembered...oh yeah, I also throw wikipedia $50 2 or 3 times a year. FB is a cesspool & does seem to be damaging the fabric of our society. I can afford throwing JW $100 for this experiment, and if it has legs & the site takes off, hey I've done some good in this world too. Bonus!

Re:

[Obfiscator]

This is the kind of attitude that I like. Willing to use some of your disposable income on an experiment that you think might make the world a better place.

If it turns out like Wikipedia...

[Chas]

Then I want none of the stupid, obtuse, willfully blind social clique system.

Join the Fediverse

[louzer]

Does WT:Social work with ActivityPub?

Doomed to fail

[Khyber]

Jimmy obviously doesn't understand that nobody is going to go anywhere where they have to pay without being offered a free initial trial. Hey Jimmy, you know how drugs work? Same thing with the fucking digital crack you're attempting to peddle for cash - first hit is ALWAYS free.

For all the education people seem to have, they fail at simple street smarts. Or basic business practices.

foundation for new offering

[SethJohnson]

featuring a simple feed comprised of news stories and comments below them.

So Jimmy bought slashdot and has rebranded it? Brilliant!!

Aaaaannd I'm out.

[NotTopGearJamesMay]

"You are number 54175 on the waiting list." Waiting for what, exactly? Fuck that. Fuck waiting. I'm out, without even trying the site. Sucks to be you.

ads?

[Micah NC]

I can think of much worse things about FB than having to scroll through ads.

1) Censorship

2) People getting banned for nothing (see 1)

3) Posts for charitable causes getting rejected by the platform because FB has a problem with charity (see 1)

I guess the ads can be a little bit annoying. I'm surprised privacy wasn't mentioned. I guess he doesn't care about that one.

Wiki-twit-book - One novel feature

[mccrew]

One novel feature of this new social network is that immediately after you make a status update, a random stranger will pounce on your post and undo your change.

A Horrible Idea

[wisnoskij]

The problem with clearing up screen space and saving your users a few MBs is that it brings far too much bias to the platform. Ads act as a great equalizer, every day, every user pays a little towards the operating costs of the site with their views. A payment proportional to their usage time. Take this away and admins, owners, mods, and editors do not respect their users and instead treat the site as their own personal platform. User banning become commonplace, bias, and contempt creep into the content; An