altonzheng got it right I think when he wrote<p><pre><code>  I had a similar revelation a while back with Snapchat. Users complain that you can&#x27;t create groups to send to, you have to manually select each person. I like this - it means when you receive a snapchat, you know that person intentionally selected you to share a part of their life with. It adds a subtle but meaningful quality to a message that could be considered spammy and impersonal  </code></pre>
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10860501" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10860501</a><p>Snapchat requires you to select who you want to see your snap.  There&#x27;s no facility to push into everyone&#x27;s feed.  I&#x27;m not sending it to my &quot;Friends&quot; or my &quot;Family&quot; without consideration.<p>You aren&#x27;t going to click 200 people, or 150, or 50.  You&#x27;re going to think &quot;These five people really love hiking.&quot;  Or &quot;My cousins were talking about adopting a husky.&quot;  Or &quot;Last time I burned bacon like this was with John and Jane.&quot;<p>Saying &quot;you can only have 150 friends&quot; wasn&#x27;t the key to a more personal experience.  It just meant there was a hard limit on how many people could spam you.  The key for me is the tiny marginal cost of sending something to N+1 people, so instead you choose more thoughtfully.