logoalt Hacker News

readitalreadyyesterday at 10:30 PM12 repliesview on HN

I really wish more social networks would have a "fading connections" limit. So many social networks suffer from stale connections and networks, and these connections should expire after a year. Otherwise, it will permanently define a social network's content and editorial direction without algorithmic control. For example, Selena Gomez will always have 400million followers on Instagram, but she's socially irrelevant now. Same with other celebrities, like Kim Kardashian. If connections expired after a year (or 3 months or 6 months), people would have to maintain their social relevance, and it becomes a natural editorial filter, keeping the overall network fresh and relevant.

If you want a business model, require payment for long-term subscriptions or large celebrity/news accounts, but you have to overcome the network effect first. Maybe have a dozen or so permanent connections to start with, like MySpace's 8 priority friends.


Replies

giancarlostoroyesterday at 10:50 PM

I feel like that was what made Google Plus better and yet because it was Google shoving everything into Google Plus itself to force numbers… it failed. Circles in Google Plus is the most underrated thing I have ever seen. You can basically group friends under specific labels, so if you want to only share some posts / photos with family, only family will see it, wanna share posts with former and current coworkers? Have at it. Or share with multiple circles or everyone / global.

Its a damn shame Google nerfed it after forcing it on people who werent asking to be forced into it. Google Plus was a very tech heavy Social Media platform, if Google had half a brain they could have built their own serious LinkedIn alternative.

show 11 replies
Aurornistoday at 12:37 AM

> If connections expired after a year (or 3 months or 6 months), people would have to maintain their social relevance, and it becomes a natural editorial filter, keeping the overall network fresh and relevant.

This is a weird comment because it treats connections like they're only an asset for the person being followed.

The people doing the following aren't even considered. They're supposed to continuously re-follow the people they want to follow?

I don't see any upsides to this for anyone. I'm not reading social media every day. I don't want the network to automatically expire my follows and force me to remember and re-discover who I want to follow all the time. I don't want the people I follow feeling like they desperately need to pursue relevance instead of just being themselves.

If Selena Gomez is "socially irrelevant" then why do you care that she has 400 million followers? What does this take away from you in any way?

show 1 reply
austhrow743yesterday at 11:10 PM

>keeping the overall network fresh and relevant

What does this mean? Like in practical feature terms and benefit to the end user?

Your system kills the social networks ability to act as someone's modern day rolodex of contact information of previous acquaintances. What do they get in exchange for that?

show 1 reply
RajT88today at 12:51 AM

For example, I know a gal who foolishly invited her whole friend list to her 26th birthday party.

Did that weird guy from 3rd grade show up? He sure did.

show 1 reply
willsmith72yesterday at 10:37 PM

Wait Kim and Selena are irrelevant? I guess I'm not keeping up with the times

show 2 replies
biker142541today at 12:26 AM

Nah, bad idea. The timeframe of an active connection really varies by age and type. Some important connections are once-every-few-years communications. A year, or two years, etc is too arbitrary.

grishkatoday at 12:02 AM

As someone who's been working on social networking and adjacent services for over 15 years, hard disagree.

An ideal social network should not have any agency of its own, period. If your feed is too crowded because you follow too many people, then so be it. It's your problem, you did this to yourself. Only you know how to fix it for yourself, if you do even want it fixed in the first place.

show 1 reply
cortesoftyesterday at 11:17 PM

I am confused... what is harmed by having stale connections? Why would connections be used as an editorial filter?

show 1 reply
ejosoyesterday at 10:52 PM

I would hate it if the system removed nodes from my network without my influence. Perhaps a rules engine with user defined criteria would be useful.

Ultimately, users define their network in current-day social media and the relevance of any celebrity or other person within it.

400M people still find Selena Gomez relevant to themselves - she’s simply not relevant to you. I asked Gemini very simply “is Selena Gomez relevant” and it responded with essentially “more in 2026 than ever.”

show 1 reply
alex1138yesterday at 10:32 PM

Don't worry, Facebook already has Fading Connections

You can be married to each other and your posts won't show up on the other person's feed (there's a post on HN about this)

show 4 replies
c0rruptbytestoday at 12:56 AM

i understand the intent, but selena is still extremely popular, especially amongst women...maybe a bad example

adi_kuriantoday at 12:41 AM

A comically atrocious take.

show 1 reply