Like millions of people, I’ve had a Facebook account for years. I don’t remember how many “Friends” I have, but it’s obviously many more than its true state. In the last year and a half, I’ve only logged in twice to my account (once to post my album, once to post a Daft Punk remix). But apart from that, I haven’t had any activity or even read any story from my news feed. I also deleted hundreds of pictures, dozens of “Liked” pages, and unnecessary profile informations (including my birthday). I eventually changed my password to a 100 characters-long random string to prevent myself from logging in back too easily.
Why such apparently drastic measures?
For one thing, I browsed Facebook far too often. I used to always keep it open in a tab and checked it regularly on both my iPod and iPad. Logging myself off only kept me away for a few hours. It felt, as it probably does for a significant percentage of its users as well, as a fierce and resilient addiction, a giant sucking hole destined to waste my somewhat precious time and ravage my already fainting productivity.
But on a more substantial note, I wasn’t eager to remain stuck in the persistent circle jerk, fueled by self-centered and shallow interactions, to which I heavily contributed and for which I have myself to blame as well.
It may seem like an overkill to completely shut myself out of a popular social experience that I could have approached differently and kept in my control. But this digital lockdown has easily succeeded in its single goal: keep me away from Facebook.
Facebook: the ultimate gathering
Apart from my close friends, my Facebook contacts also included my extended family, former work colleagues, long lost schoolmates, various encounters from foreign countries, short-lived relationships, as well as a wide network of mutual friends.
This diversity of channels is mainly due to Facebook having become the de facto corner stone of a web-based identity and ultimately the personal v-card commonly held by any 13-40 years-old connected being, and especially anyone I’ve been familiar with.
A new Facebook account?
Creating a secondary Facebook account, to selectively include a few “designated” friends and family members whom I’m keen to be informed about, has crossed my mind but I’ve dismissed this decision as an unworkable option. It would have led to some confusion, displeasure, and probably questions from “excluded” friends about why they’re not part of my newly-created network. Plus, a Facebook account is nowadays part of a whole “social” package that is sometimes hard to avoid misusing.
It would have eventually resulted in a one-sided experience, where I’d read everyone’s stories but not contribute any or to any. Not a dreadful option, but not what I was looking for.
Path: a potential alternative
Path has been on my radar for quite a while. An almost private social network, for just friends and family? A well-branded iOS app with a clean intuitive interface? Sounds good.
The UI element was an important factor because I’d have to convince my mostly non tech-savvy friends and family members to use Path alongside their usual Facebook account.
Path embodied exactly what I envisioned in a post-Facebook social experience, focused on quality and intimacy. I personified the perfect target market, as I was probably in a similar state of mind as Path’s founders when they imagined their product, looking to fill the following need: “A Facebook-like experience without its inconveniences”.
Why I never actually subscribed to Path isn’t related to the multiple privacy concerns it spawned among its users (because I was unaware of them) but to the “internet socialization” needs I lacked since I quit Facebook.
Path and its users: 2 conflicting objectives
I’m convinced that those who ultimately choose Path as their primary social network consider it as a reboot of their digital interactions. They wish to escape the Facebook tangle they’ve generated and rejoice in a brand-new healthy network they could control.
The best (and maybe only) method to fulfill that goal is to limit yourself to a small number of contacts. Path itself provides a 150 contacts limit but I’d argue that 30 is well enough for such a network. I myself intended to have only 10 contacts.
But how would Path grow if every user followed such a behavior? It’s not really a chicken and egg problem: people (like me) wouldn’t wait for a significant amount of users to have subscribed before subscribing themselves because you don’t care about how many users Path has. You’re not here to meet new people. Quite the opposite really: you’re here to interact with people you already know and are especially close to. You only need a few of your friends and family members to join, and you can tell them directly. A quick email, a phone call, or just while chatting in person. “Hey, there’s this cool service, for just you and me. We should join.” I know I would have used Path intensively even with 2 or 3 friends only.
Path is meant to grow very slowly. It’s like trying to fill a pool by filling it up with drops of water, but that’s how Path is designed to grow. If you position yourself as the private social network for family and close friends, you can’t expect people to gather new users by the dozen because it’s the exact opposite that led them to join your service in the first place.