Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Competitor Orkut Relaunches as 'Hello' (bloombergquint.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: In 2004, one of the world's most popular social networks, Orkut, was founded by a former Google employee named Orkut Buyukkokten... Orkut was shut down by Google in 2014, but in its heyday, the network had hit 300 million users around the world... "Hello.com is a spiritual successor of Orkut.com," Buyukkokten told BloombergQuint... "People have lost trust in social networks and the main reason is social media services today don't put the users first. They put advertisers, brands, third parties, shareholders before the users," Buyukkokten said. "They are also not transparent about practices. The privacy policy and terms of services are more like black boxes. How many users actually read them?"

Buyukkokten said users need to be educated about these things and user consent is imperative in such situations when data is shared by such platforms. "On Hello, we do not share data with third parties. We have our own registration and login and so the data doesn't follow you anywhere," he said. "You don't need to sell user data in order to be profitable or make money."

103 comments

  1. Say Hello to Google's Team of Attorneys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eom

    1. Re:Say Hello to Google's Team of Attorneys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes

    2. Re:Say Hello to Google's Team of Attorneys by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      "As your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit. You won't need much, just a tiny taste." -- Dr. Gonzo

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    3. Re: Say Hello to Google's Team of Attorneys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please conduct the test as you propose and then report back to us the results.

      Thanks.

  2. For those trying to sign up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their app is badly broken right now. I've been trying for the last week to sign up, no dice.

    1. Re:For those trying to sign up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would anyone be trying to sign up to yet another social media platform.

    2. Re:For those trying to sign up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would anyone be trying to sign up to yet another social media platform.

      Don't worry. You probably can't.

      'United States of America' is greyed out in their dropdown list. Additionally the App Store tells me their app is 'incompatible with all your devices'. I have a Google Pixel. Sounds like bad programming or deliberately blocking US users because of some stupid arbitrary thing like sign-up limits. Meh. Fuck 'em.

    3. Re:For those trying to sign up by omnichad · · Score: 1

      On the app store, are you looking at the India-only version?
      Relevant link: https://m.hello.com/en/downloa...

    4. Re:For those trying to sign up by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's blocked by Facebook.

      Uninstall that and try again.

      If that doesn't fix it, suspect that I'm full of shit.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:For those trying to sign up by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

      I think you should turn the question around and ask were some groups of people have the traits you cite. According to Professor Gregory Clark, there was a persistent selection of some population subgroups over 20 generations up to about 1800. http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.ed...

      That's the same number of generations and selection pressure that the Russians used to change the personality of wild foxes into tame ones.

      Not that selection will matter very much in the not so distant future when we have complete control of our genes.

      --
      End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
  3. How about I keep my data to myself by martok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Posting my status updates and photos into yet another company's database doesn't appeal in the slightest. Put aside for the moment that they could be bought up and have their privacy policy changed. The inevitable data breach will expose my data in the end. There's a lot of talk about how Facebook sells our data to third parties. But how about why they are keeping it for so long in the first place?

    1. Re:How about I keep my data to myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of talk about how Facebook sells our data to third parties.

      Facebook says they *DO NOT* sell your information.

      They *GIVE IT AWAY TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ADVERTISE ON FACEBOOK*.

      Big difference!!!

    2. Re:How about I keep my data to myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      giving in exchange for something, i.e. paid advertising IS SELLING.

    3. Re:How about I keep my data to myself by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      giving in exchange for something, i.e. paid advertising IS SELLING.

      I think the Facebook's attempted sleight-of-hand here is they are claiming they are not selling the user data itself, they are selling the advertising space. The user data is being given to those clients, but Facebook is trying to pretend it's okay if it's a "complimentary service" and not technically billed.

    4. Re:How about I keep my data to myself by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The user data is being given to those clients

      No it isn't. The clients specify the profile of the users they want to reach, and Facebook uses the data it has collected to place those ads. They do not sell the data to their advertising clients, they only sell access to specified segments of their users.

      They would be foolish to sell the data itself, since they could only sell that once.

      All this, of course, is not considering leaks.

    5. Re:How about I keep my data to myself by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Facebook and Google don't (intentionally) sell your information, because if they sell it then someone else can offer services that currently only they can offer. Instead they offer services that use that information, which often end up leaking that information.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:How about I keep my data to myself by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      As the Cambridge Analytica case shows, they do sell access to the data. Maybe not your actual photos, but things like your name, gender, where you live, where you work, who you know and the nature of your relationships with them, your political views and affiliations, what stuff you are shopping for right now etc.

      They can sell on-going access to it because their customers are interested in how people's behaviour and views change over time. They want to target individuals and then see what the result of their effort is, then refine and repeat.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:How about I keep my data to myself by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the Cambridge Analytica case shows, they do sell access to the data.

      Facebook did not sell any data to Cambridge Analytica.

      Facebook allowed university researchers limited access to user data. This was done at no cost, so there was no "selling". Those researchers then used the limited data with screen scrapers to get additional information on users, and then one or more of the researchers (not Facebook) passed the information on to Cambridge Analytica in blatant violation of their agreement with Facebook.

      Facebook was certainly careless and incompetent, but they didn't "sell" data, nor did they intend for most of the user data to be seen by anyone outside Facebook.

    8. Re: How about I keep my data to myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow only careless and incompetent? That makes me feel so better about Facebook... The zuck is as bad as the trumpeter...

      You might as well be evil if you are incompetent because evil forces will eventually take advantage of you.

    9. Re: How about I keep my data to myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to fuck up" ?

  4. Who pays? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Their pledge is "user first", but the relevant method to forecast privacy behavior beyond words is economy: who pays?

    1. Re:Who pays? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      User is always the product.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Who pays? by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      User is always the product.

      Indeed. Monetizing these incredibly popular social platforms is the most distasteful part of the process. Sell users information, or tolerate intrusive advertisements.

      Given the recent telling-if-you-read-between-the-lines Congressional (capitalized reluctantly) debriefing of the facebook's founder, pay-for-play social media is under consideration... folks who spend US$100+ on cable they almost never watch are bristling at the mere thought of paying dollars a month for the hundred hours they spend each month on Zuck's site.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  5. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not even a site... hello.com only talks about downloading some fucking "app". I have no phone. This is bullshit. And not a word about it in the summary... Retarded news.

    1. Re:WTF? by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have no phone. This is bullshit.

      They evidently feel that you, as a member of the PC-using minority, are expendable.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:WTF? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      I have no phone. This is bullshit.

      They evidently feel that you, as a member of the PC-using minority, are expendable.

      Fair enough given they are even more expendable as yet another social media platform. But if PC users are a minority then what does that make iPhone users with an even smaller userbase?

    3. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another "web site" that's really a proprietary client-server system, like the old AOL. I thought the Web was supposed to make this kind of crap obsolete, and that it had won out over the close-garden systems. But I keep seeing more of this... Instagram and Grindr, for example.

    4. Re:WTF? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Worse, it's probably an app with an HTML/Javascript based UI. Good luck distracting people at work, if it's not available on PC.

    5. Re:WTF? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      A smartphone app lets them track your location, see your cell number, email address, grab your friends list, etc.

      A desktop browser gives them none of that information.

    6. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a mobile browser? Even most blamed one(FB) accept web login. Others do have support for browsers, but only partially. Yet, for many files uploading process can become cumbersome, if number of files is big.
      Instagram for example only accept files from their proprietary apps installed on phone OS of a user. Some doesn't care to much about pictures, but vast majority of social network users is addicton to selfies. Unfortunely, Hello only support mobile apps, at this moment :|

    7. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from the website:

      Regarding Windows Phone & a web-accessible version

      At this time we do not have a planned release date for a web version or a Windows phone version of hello, but we are working on ways to support other devices.

      https://hellonetwork.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/225458707-Regarding-Windows-Phone-a-web-accessible-version

  6. Re:Frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  7. Re:Frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hullo zeeba neighba.

  8. Re:Frist by russotto · · Score: 1

    If only you knew how close you were.

  9. distributed or "nope" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next time I create a social media account it will be on a server that I built that lives in my house, using open distributed transfer protocols.
    Like Mastodon, only not so gay.

    1. Re:distributed or "nope" by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Google Wave failed. Apache Wave is also dead as of Jan. 2018.

    2. Re:distributed or "nope" by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Apart from being a bloody mess and having a horrible UI, in what way was Google/Apache Wave even "distributed"? At least in its Google incarnation, it seemed to require centralized servers and maintenance.

    3. Re:distributed or "nope" by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Even in its Google incarnation, it could federate with any server that implemented the protocol (much like email) - you didn't even need to touch Google's servers. The UI was only one implementation. Of course, UI was the hardest part of designing something like that and probably failing that is what killed it.

    4. Re:distributed or "nope" by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      That just means that multiple service providers could offer the service; it doesn't make it a distributed service.

    5. Re:distributed or "nope" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I don't necessarily need to run it myself, but for me to be willing to sign up, I need:

      To use an identifier that I own and can port to another provider without their cooperation. For example, something based on a domain name that I own, as with email. A large number of email providers, for example, allow me to point my DNS records at their server and use them to handle my mail. This dramatically reduces lock-in, because if I don't like them I can just point the DNS records elsewhere.

      To be able to extract all of my data in a standard format. Again, with email I can move between providers by just pointing an IMAP client (including a command-line tool like imapsync) at both and telling it to move my data.

      To use a federated open protocol, so that I can communicate with users who do not use the same provider. Again, with email I can communicate with people who host their own service, people who use an employer-provided service, people who use a free service such as GMail or Hotmail, without any problems.

      To be supported by multiple implementations. With a single implementation of a protocol, you have no guarantee that it's actually documented well enough for anyone else to use and you have no guarantee that it doesn't expose implementation details by accident. Equally importantly, if there's a single implementation then there's nothing stopping the developers from pushing the UI in a direction that I don't like, because there's nothing for me to switch to. Again, with email there are a load of different clients (native and web-based) that I can use, so if one annoys me then I can switch without losing any of my data.

      Diaspora appears to be pretty close to this. The federation protocol is mostly sane and has a few implementations (though putting an extreme copyleft license on the reference implementation wasn't such a great idea), though the client-server part of the protocol doesn't seem to be very well documented or possible to support with different implementations. Ideally, I'd want to see a clean separation between client-server protocol and web UI, so the web interface is just that: an interface that talks to a back-end server as a separable component. Again, this improves competition because someone else can easily decide that they hate the UI, write a better one, and reuse all of the back-end code.

      Oh, and in an ideal world it wouldn't involve PHP. Anywhere.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:distributed or "nope" by tepples · · Score: 1

      To use a federated open protocol, so that I can communicate with users who do not use the same provider. Again, with email I can communicate with people who host their own service, people who use an employer-provided service, people who use a free service such as GMail or Hotmail, without any problems.

      In a federated protocol, other providers can refuse to communicate with a provider that they deem abusive. SMTP servers, for example, often use RBLs to refuse messages from dynamic IP addresses on grounds that the vast majority of home MTAs are spam zombies, not especially technical home users who host their own service on a home ISP. Instead, they accept messages only A. from data centers (on port 25) or B. from their own subscribers (on port 587 with authentication). So how does a provider convince other providers that the provider is not abusive?

      Oh, and in an ideal world it wouldn't involve PHP. Anywhere.

      I'm told PHP running on Zend Engine 3 is faster than the equivalent Python running on CPython 3. What makes PHP any worse than, say, ECMAScript? Many of Eevee's complaints against mirror Douglas Crockford's against JavaScript, as I've described elsewhere.

  10. which "Hello" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unfortunate deployment method. It refuses to be available unless I install it on a smartphone, but I must get a download link by sending an SMS text. If I go to an app store for software that's been vetted as safe to install, I counted eight diferent apps named "Hello" before I gave up trying to find a safe version of their software.

    1. Re:which "Hello" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was supposed to go all the way to eleven.

  11. We don't sell your data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yet.

    Eventually they all sell your data. There's just too much money at stake.

  12. 'ello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trademark folks at Ello.co might want to have a word with them.

  13. Orkut was so popular... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    That it eventually got shut down, and nobody cared.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Orkut was so popular... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      That it eventually got shut down, and nobody cared.

      They are hedging their bets on the idea Facebook's time in the sun is ending. Social networks were folding before because Facebook became the de facto one. Now with a mass exodus possible, someone wants to be the "place everyone moves to".

      If the King is dying, a new battle for the throne is about to begin.

    2. Re:Orkut was so popular... by siege72 · · Score: 2

      I was a fairly active Orkut user when it came out.

      If memory serves, the problem was that language requirements weren't enforced. Apparently Orkut was very popular with Brazilians, so most groups were overrun by Portuguese speakers -- even groups that had English listed as a requirement. English speakers abandoned Orkut, and the platform was forgotten by North American media.

  14. Too much competition by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

    There are several competitors that are fighting to be the new facebook. I looked at several of them and they are already getting traction. I like the look of MeWe best so far but I'm keeping my eye on a few of the others.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Too much competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do any of them store your data in an encrypted format?

    2. Re:Too much competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't MeWe a Chinese site? ...yeah, I'm sure they really take user privacy seriously... e_e

    3. Re:Too much competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm, so if they value privacy what's the membership fee? And if they value privacy why do they require an email or phone number to sign up? hmmm...

    4. Re:Too much competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to see a non-USA based company that puts security and privacy outside the hold of USA law to use instead.

  15. The new goal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This time around they are thinking BIG - shooting for 3 concurrent users!

  16. Re:Frist by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Really?

    Again?

    I thought we were Pastis.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  17. intrinsically defective by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    The idea of a centralized service for building social networks is intrinsically defective. Social networks should be distributed, with no single point of failure or control, no single point to monetize users, and no single point to compromise privacy. What we need if we really care about privacy and individual control is some combination of web-of-trust, digital signatures, blockchain, and peer to peer networking.

    1. Re:intrinsically defective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encrypted newsgroups with support for membership (join/leave/block) is what I would like.

      Then you could host a repository on any old web server or not even use a web app to access it...

    2. Re:intrinsically defective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Centralization isn't defective at all, for the actual goal: monitoring populations and controlling public opinion.

    3. Re:intrinsically defective by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Social media need the network effect to succeed. Facebook has grown big because many people can find their friends there (and then acquire fake friends)

      If they want to grow they need to work on a social media interworking protocol - so that you can link to people who use different social media platforms. They will not become the next Facebook, they might succeed as one of a federation of social media platforms that all work together. Facebook will refuse to interwork with other SM platforms until it finds that it is loosing users to the SM federation.

    4. Re:intrinsically defective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of a centralized service for building social networks is intrinsically defective. Social networks should be distributed, with no single point of failure or control, no single point to monetize users, and no single point to compromise privacy. What we need if we really care about privacy and individual control is some combination of web-of-trust, digital signatures, blockchain, and peer to peer networking.

      right idea but need some way to finance

  18. It already completely failed for me by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no web version of it to use on a computer.

    If I'm sitting in front of my computer already, I don't want to have to use my phone just to access a site.

    1. Re:It already completely failed for me by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      "On Hello, we do not share data with third parties. We have our own registration and login and so the data doesn't follow you anywhere,"

      I don't think the founder understands the internet.

      By requiring us to have an iTunes account or a Google Play account in order to download the app, he's effectively forcing us to share our information with Apple or Google and get us flagged as Hello users.

      Not allowing us to download the app and install it as a third party app (at least on Android) was a very deliberate decision on his part. Me thinks this guy's PR firm simply noticed the PR disaster that Zuckerberg just went through and decided to capitalize on that to get some free publicity.

      Personally, I would feel a lot better about a privacy-focused social network if it was founded by someone with a track record of valuing privacy of others. But may be I'm asking for too much, and perhaps a privacy-focused social networking platform is too much of an oxymoron.

    2. Re:It already completely failed for me by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"There is no web version of it to use on a computer."

      Yep, I came to comments to post that, myself. I can't believe it! A phone app ONLY? If you want to leak ALL your data to some company, forcing an "app" is the best way to do it right now.

    3. Re:It already completely failed for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mobiles are the new PC, old PCs are the new mainframes.

    4. Re:It already completely failed for me by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Mobiles are the new dumb terminals. The "clown" is the new mainframe. FTFY.

  19. Welcome back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRC* is still here.

    With distributed servers and no ads at all.

    Have fun.

    AC

    * Internet Relay Chat

    1. Re: Welcome back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern communication mean more than a simple chat and text messages exchanged by users. Pictures, video, audio streams, what it's called multimedia(and hypermedia) is the Norm of Internet and technology today. Or newer virtual or argumented reallity.

    2. Re: Welcome back by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      IRC has that, it’s called hyperlinks to whatever you want( its up to the client to implement tho) , I will admit that IRC lacks ( at last most networks) a server side chat history but thst is a limitation that will dissapeer if enugh users wantit I think. Bonus irc client are svalable on all platform, there are even quite capable web front ends. But why did i post this on slashdot? Most of the users here allready know about IRC.

  20. Available only as a smartphone app.

    There's likely a reason for that; to get permissions it would not get on a PC. No thanks.

    1. Re:um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or because who the fuck does social media on a PC?

    2. Re:um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      probably half the world, PC is still one of the most common ways to access things like facebook. Perhaps if you got out of your basement you might learn the world doesn't revolve around your insular usage patterns.

    3. Re:um by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's likely a reason for that; to get permissions it would not get on a PC.

      Are you using Lynx? On a modern browser you can consider yourself lucky that this post doesn't turn on your webcam and start recording your Slashdot session.

  21. Requiring a phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should tell you all you need to know about this site- phone-number-keyed data.

  22. Re:Frist by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    We had coffee and crème brulée last night at Pastis. Nice place.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  23. Try Foxsake.com instead. by nixkuroi · · Score: 1

    If you're looking for a new social network that really does respect your privacy, try http://www.foxsake.com/ .

    1. Re:Try Foxsake.com instead. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Just tried it... I see why, it's completely empty and devoid of life...

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  24. Privacy Statement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't find it on hello.com, but Google can:

    https://hello.com/policy/privacy/

    (excerpt)

    Information that We Share with Third Parties
    We will not share any PII that we have collected from or regarding you except as described below:

    Information Shared with Other Account Holders. As part of our Services, any Account holder may view your profile information, which includes your name, gender, location of interest and profile picture. You may also choose to share additional information, such as age or birthday. Your email address and phone number will never be shared with others as part of your profile information. Any Account holder may also view your public posts. As part of our Services, you can directly communicate with other Account holders, whether you are connected with them or not. The content of your communications will be visible and available to those Account holders with whom you communicate. For example, the phone number you provide to create your Account is not shared with other Account holders when you connect with them, unless you decide to share it by providing the number yourself in a communication with another user. We encourage you to use your good judgment for your communications and not post any private or sensitive information.
    Information Shared with Our Services Providers. We may engage third-party services providers to work with us to administer and provide the Services or to respond to your questions and inquiries. These third-party services providers have access to your PII only for the purpose of performing services on our behalf.
    Information Shared with Third Parties. We may share aggregated information and non-identifying information with third parties for industry research and analysis, demographic profiling and other similar purposes.
    Information Disclosed in Connection with Business Transactions. Information that we collect from our users, including PII, is considered to be a business asset. Thus, if we are acquired by a third party as a result of a transaction such as a merger, acquisition or asset sale or if our assets are acquired by a third party in the event we go out of business or enter bankruptcy, some or all of our assets, including your PII, may be disclosed or transferred to a third party acquirer in connection with the transaction.
    Information Disclosed for Our Protection and the Protection of Others. It is our policy to protect you from having your privacy violated through abuse of the legal system, whether by individuals, entities or government, and to contest claims that we believe to be invalid under applicable law. However, it is also our policy to cooperate with government and law enforcement officials and private parties to enforce and comply with the law. We may disclose any information about you to government or law enforcement officials or private parties as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary or appropriate: (i) to respond to claims or the legal process (including subpoenas); (ii) to protect our property, rights and safety and the property, rights and safety of a third party or the public in general; and (iii) to stop any activity that we consider illegal, unethical or legally actionable activity.
    Your Choices
    We offer you choices regarding the collection, use and sharing of your PII and weÃââll respect the choices you make. Please note that if you decide not to provide us with the PII that we request, you may not be able to access all of the features of the Services.
    Alerts and Notifications. As part of the Services we provide, you may (if enabled) receive push notifications, text messages, alerts, emails, or other types of messages directly sent to you outside or inside the App (ÃâÅ"Push MessagesÃâÂ). You have control over the Push Messages settings, and can opt in or out of these Push Messages through the Services (with the possible exception of infrequent, important service announcements and administrative messages). Please be aware that third party messagin

  25. No Web Interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to play, it seems, is to download an "app." There's no web interface.

    Complete non-starter for me. Hard pass.

  26. As a former Orkut user... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    ...and city channel moderator, I'll say this: it won't work. People left Orkut to get on Facebook for a reason. If you never used it, think about MySpace rebranding itself and trying to become relevant once again.

  27. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this guy fuck the Zuck? Tune in at 11 for news.

  28. No more American social sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think at this point it's clear that any social site simply can not be made and housed in and by America, because they will all degrade into the same thing -- a money-making business that feeds all private and personal details to both businesses and American intelligence services.

  29. no way by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    People have lost trust in social media, but we're not like the others! I call bullshit on this.

  30. Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A true spiritual successor to Orkut would be called Olá.

  31. Facebook Competitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook competitor? LOL

    Facebook has successfully established itself as the defacto social media monopoly. Also rans such as Twitter, Instagram(Facebook), SnapChat(LOL) COMBINED pale in comparison to Facebook.

    Orkut/Hello aren't even close to being a competitor.

  32. Ucking Fapps by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

    Getting really tired of what ought to be a standard web interface demanding instead that I must install their special "app". I *do* have a phone, but I still don't want yet another special "app" running in the background for just one more special website.

  33. Re:Frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hello.jpg should be the default user picture on Hello.

  34. hello.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site tries to load a script from facebook.net - no thanks.

    Thank you to uMatrix.

  35. Re: Frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regis says hello...

  36. Mild critiques eventually become endorsements by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    There is no web version of it to use on a computer.

    While true that's an incredibly weak criticism of Hello (nee Orkut). In time that could change, and this critique would suggest that somehow makes Hello worth considering.

    A more thoroughgoing critique is that Hello just another central-point-of-censorship/tracker regardless of what their current terms of service and/or developer promises say. Switching from Facebook to this or some workalike is switching masters or switching parties who spy on you, not getting away from being spied upon. Google's saying used to be "Don't be evil" but as far as we know Google always spied on their users, Google distributes proprietary malware, and Google pushes other central/single-point-of-censorship services that could be done in a privacy and freedom-respecting way (such as free software-based, decentralized, real-time chat). The fix for this is possible but not in line with any business built to be yet-another spying service. This a far better reason to reject Hello and to reject anything else with the same centralized architecture.

    1. Re:Mild critiques eventually become endorsements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no web version of it to use on a computer.

      While true that's an incredibly weak criticism of Hello (nee Orkut).

      It's not weak, it's pretty much a show-stopper.

  37. Mobile only by allo · · Score: 1

    Bye

  38. Authentication by tepples · · Score: 1

    And if they value privacy why do they require an email or phone number to sign up?

    Through what other means do you expect users to receive a synchronizer token to reset their authentication credentials?

  39. File drops and bouncers by tepples · · Score: 1

    IRC has that, it’s called hyperlinks to whatever you want( its up to the client to implement tho)

    To what server would the client upload said media in order to produce a hyperlink? IRC server software distributions tend not to bundle a file drop for use by the server's members. This means each user has to lease web hosting for the file drop.

    I will admit that IRC lacks ( at last most networks) a server side chat history but thst is a limitation that will dissapeer if enugh users wantit I think.

    ZNC is one popular example of an IRC proxy program called a "bouncer" that remains connected to an IRC server and saves chat history on behalf of a user so that the user can view it once he reconnects to the bouncer. But IRC server software distributions tend not to bundle a bouncer for use by the server's members. This means each user has to lease a shell account for the bouncer.

  40. Total crap app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not available in my country (one of the larger European countries) and only has a app but not a website. Worthless.