Do you think it would be possible to make a social network like

You mean like 4chan?

>>58665072
/thread

>>58665060
I was honestly amazed when I found that Facebook makes it mandatory for you to use your real name. How can something so massive force its users to link their online habits with their real name. It's insane.

>>58665072
dunno, I was thinking more like facebook meets tinder meets pokemon go but with not real identity tied to your account.

>>58665091
snapchat

>>58665099
explain

>>58665091
this is twitter, or really even any other social network. no one is forcing you to put your real information out

>>58665320
but my idea is like tinder but for making new friends.

>>58665084

blame suckerberg and his rich lib friends

>>58665320
not him but twitter is rough, eastern artists use it a lot to host their images, but i doubt i've ever seen a lossless image from the site, regardless of the modest 600x800 or so res they tend to be

and the character limit makes it little more than a passive aggressive shitpost machine when not simply one person speaking short sentences out of context, alone. not ideal

>>58665099
This boi has it

>>58665060
I can't tell if you're talking about just allowing people to not use their real identity, or forcing them not to.

It sounds like you're asking the former but, no offense, that's a pretty stupid question to ask because it's so fucking obvious the answer is yes (you just don't put in restrictions on name/avatar, what's the big deal?)

So I'm guessing you're asking the later?
The only way I could think of forcing people not to use their real identity is to actually verify their identity just like those other sites, except you would keep that hidden and require that their chosen display name/photo do not match their identity.
But I don't think anyone would go to the effort of doing that.

>>58665477
more like allowing the user to choose his own username and allow if he wants to appear like anonymous in messages.

no hard to imagine a mix.

>>58665517
Oh I think I see what you mean.

"anonymous" in the sense that one user can't be told apart from another user?
That's a totally different question than just not having their real world identity used

>>58665585
sure, maybe an user can choose to post as anonymous.

>>58665595
not him but you mean like for example a forum, but there is an anonymous posting option?

i don't rightly see the point desu. if i'm posting to social media i would want friends. on tumblr you can already ask anonymous questions if the owner has enabled it i believe

>>58665705
more like a tinder but for making friends.

>>58665720
If you want that while being "anonymous" as the guy before me defined, in that they're indistinguishable from other users, it seems rather mutually exclusive, doesn't it?

user "dog" says hello into the void
anonymous user replies

^ the above scenario cannot progress further into friendship unless the anonymous user makes compromises his anonymity to make a username

it could even be the other way around- anonymous user speaks into the void, a named user replies- and there would still be no "friendship" without both parties having names. again, i don't quite see the point in incorporating

>"anonymous" in the sense that one user can't be told apart from another user

as per the definition of the last guy you were speaking with, when the goal for the site is friendship

>>58665060
Diaspora.

File: you_must_be_gnu_here.png (163KB, 311x311px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 311x311px

>>58665967
>>58665060


The founder killed himself

>>58666041
it's still around tho anon...