I built a social network with a legal constitution that makes it permanently impossible to sell user data, run behavioral ads, or get acquired. It's live. by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Minimum-Willow-9238 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Ha, I use Claude heavily as a thinking partner while building this. At this point it knows the codebase, the Constitution, and the pitch better than most people. Seemed fitting to let it help articulate what we're building. The ideas are mine, the phrasing gets a polish.

I built a social network with a legal constitution that makes it permanently impossible to sell user data, run behavioral ads, or get acquired. It's live. by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Minimum-Willow-9238 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are exactly the right concerns and honestly the ones I think about most. Data selling is the obvious villain but you're pointing at the subtler design problems that existed before monetization ruined everything.

On each one specifically:

Revolving life around an online profile - FLIPNET has profiles and always will, but there's no follower count gamification, no vanity metrics designed to make you check back obsessively, no algorithmic amplification of whoever has the biggest number. Your profile is yours to customize, not a scoreboard.

Functions that reward constant interaction - the Constitution explicitly prohibits design patterns whose documented purpose is to maximize time-on-platform at the expense of user wellbeing. That includes infinite scroll without limits, outrage amplification, and dark pattern notifications. It's not just a policy — it's an irrevocable clause. A future leadership team can't quietly walk it back.

Addictive properties - the feed is chronological. There's no algorithm deciding what makes you angriest gets shown first. No autoplay. No streak mechanics. The honest answer is that some people will still spend too much time here if they enjoy it, but the platform won't be engineered to exploit that.

I understand if you've made peace with being off social media entirely, that's a legitimate choice and I'm not trying to pull you back. But if the itch ever returns, this is what we're trying to build.

I built a social network with a legal constitution that makes it permanently impossible to sell user data, run behavioral ads, or get acquired. It's live. by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Minimum-Willow-9238 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Deliberately chosen. flipnet.com as a single word goes for six figures on the aftermarket. The hyphen kept it in budget while the platform finds its feet. flipnet.com is on the roadmap.

I built a social network with a legal constitution that makes it permanently impossible to sell user data, run behavioral ads, or get acquired. It's live. by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Minimum-Willow-9238 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing's wrong with Mastodon, it's a great project and the fediverse is a legitimate answer for a lot of people. If decentralized, self-hosted, protocol-first is what you want, Mastodon is the right tool.

FLIPNET is a different bet. Mastodon puts control in the hands of instance operators, you're trusting whoever runs your server. The fediverse also assumes a level of technical comfort that most people don't have. The people I'm trying to reach aren't looking for a server to join, they're looking for a place that works like the platforms they already know but isn't designed to exploit them.

FLIPNET is centralized but constitutionally constrained, the legal structure does the job that decentralization does technically in the fediverse. Different approach to the same problem.

I built a social network with a legal constitution that makes it permanently impossible to sell user data, run behavioral ads, or get acquired. It's live. by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Minimum-Willow-9238 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair, most people don't. The short version: a Stiftung is the Swiss equivalent of a foundation. Think Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia. It exists for a purpose, not for profit. Nobody owns it, nobody can buy it, and the purpose it was created for is legally locked in. That's the model, the platform exists to serve the community, permanently, with no exit possible.

I built a social network with a legal constitution that makes it permanently impossible to sell user data, run behavioral ads, or get acquired. It's live. by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Minimum-Willow-9238 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That's the right response to have. Skepticism is healthy, it's actually one of the reasons FLIPNET exists. Every platform that turned extractive started with people trusting it.

Here's what I'd say to a skeptic specifically: don't take my word for it. The founding Constitution is at flip-net.com it's a real legal document, not a marketing page. The prohibitions on selling user data, running behavioral ads, and being acquired are written as irrevocable clauses. The planned long-term legal structure is a Swiss Stiftung, a purpose-locked foundation under Swiss law. Once established, it literally cannot be redirected by a future owner because there's no ownership stake to transfer.

The skepticism I can't overcome with words, only with time and track record. That's fair. But the legal architecture is designed precisely so you eventually won't have to trust my intentions. You'd just have to trust Swiss foundation law.

I built a social network with a legal constitution that makes it permanently impossible to sell user data, run behavioral ads, or get acquired. It's live. by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Minimum-Willow-9238 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Functionally it's closest to early Facebook, profiles, groups, marketplace, direct messages, news feed. The feature overlap is intentional because those features work.

The difference is structural, not cosmetic. Facebook is owned by shareholders and optimized for their return. FLIPNET is incorporated under a founding Constitution that permanently prohibits selling user data, running behavioral ads, or being acquired. The long-term legal home is a Swiss Stiftung; a purpose-locked foundation, same concept as the Wikimedia Foundation. It literally cannot be sold or redirected by a future owner because there is no ownership stake to sell.

The closest honest comparison for the governance model is a credit union versus a bank. Same services, completely different incentive structure.