Toward a Slow, Humane Social Network

Read Articleadded Sep 17, 2025
Toward a Slow, Humane Social Network

The author critiques modern social media as engagement-maximizing, ad-driven systems that exploit users rather than connect them. He proposes a slow, humane alternative: mutual connections with a cap, chronological paginated feeds, daily posting limits, and no algorithms, ads, or analytics. While unlikely to scale by traditional metrics, it could work in niches and be sustained by small teams or donations.

Key Points

  • Current social platforms have evolved into ad-funded recommendation engines that optimize for engagement, not human connection.
  • A humane alternative should use mutual connections (no followers), cap relationships (~300), and limit daily posts to encourage intentional sharing.
  • Feeds should be chronological with pagination, avoiding infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations to create natural stopping points.
  • Eliminate analytics, short-form video, and growth mechanics that incentivize self-promotion and parasocial dynamics.
  • Such a platform won’t excel by traditional success metrics but could thrive in niches; funding might rely on low costs and donations.

Sentiment

Cautiously supportive of the ideals but largely skeptical about feasibility and mainstream impact; many agree with the goals, few believe it can scale without regulation or major shifts in incentives.

In Agreement

  • Small, private, mutually confirmed networks with chronological, finite feeds are healthier and align with real social connection.
  • Posting limits, friend caps (e.g., Dunbar-number scale), and no analytics/recommendations discourage engagement-maximizing behavior.
  • Hiding public like/reaction counts and making comments opt-in reduces dopamine chasing and social comparison.
  • Existing tools partially deliver the vision: WhatsApp/Signal/Telegram groups, Discord communities, Friendica/Mastodon/Lemmy, Peergos (E2EE), Tumblr/LiveJournal, Goodreads, Slowly.
  • Friction can be a feature; a bit of effort curbs low-value posting and passive doomscrolling.
  • Regulation may be necessary to counteract ad-driven incentives and attention monetization.
  • A journaling-first product with social as optional could align with slow, intentional sharing.

Opposed

  • It won’t scale: network effects, lock-in, and walled gardens keep friends and family on mainstream platforms.
  • Extroverts and many users prefer convenience and high engagement; slow social serves a small niche.
  • Banning or regulating algorithms is technically and legally fraught; even reverse-chronological order is an algorithm.
  • Prohibiting brand or non-personal accounts would gut popular use cases and likely kill adoption.
  • Economic incentives in any network produce celebrity nodes and attention arms races, undermining egalitarian designs.
  • Prior attempts (Path, LiveJournal, Tuenti, BeReal’s early model) show that the market drifts toward engagement or stagnates.
  • Users themselves drive outrage and virality; platforms aren’t the only problem, so regulation alone may not fix behavior.
  • If the goal is personal connection, existing solutions (group chats, email/phone) already work; otherwise, a filter client atop current platforms may be more pragmatic.
Toward a Slow, Humane Social Network