Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 657 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#611

Post by ED_Radish »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #369
sixo wrote: post #331

It is pretty offensive that they say "reddit works better on the app" when the only reason for that is that they broke everything on mobile (on purpose?) in a series of badly-implemented redesigns. I'm never going to install it, and I have all but stopped reading it because these prompts are so obnoxious. That's probably +$ for Reddit though. I don't understand why companies constantly do stuff that serves only _them…

I use Redreader on android. The experience is magnitudes better than the "real" app It's free and opensource, available on f-droid or if you are so inclined google playstore. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.quantumbadger.redreader/

Sync gang rise

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#612

Post by efreak »

zentiggr wrote: post #273
loh wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally not a fan of notification spam either, but I would assume that notifications via mobile browsers would be opt-in. Is that a bad assumption?

In the history of site and app developers so far, yes, a very poor assumption. Assume opt- .

I can't imagine user-hostile features like silently allowing websites to spam you would drive browser share in a wanted direction. That's like expecting people to use your website because you sell their information.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#614

Post by monoideism »

viridian wrote: post #519
monoideism wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, and I've love to have something other than first-past-the-post. However, throughout our history, our two-party system has generally (with some notable exceptions) been able to work and work together. That's no longer the case. As such, it's hard to tell if the political polarization is a reflection of society, or if society is just adopting the polarization of our political elites. So I stand by my or…

This is a tremulously rose colored portrait of history. The most openly hostile, contentious election in American history didn't happen in 2016, or 2008, or 2000, it happened in 1828. Many American institutional families would say that Jackson being a jackbooted thug was the very least damning of his odious traits. Meanwhile Jackson's largely populist supporters would go on to accuse the current poltical body of bein…

I suggest reading more carefully. I wrote “with some notable exceptions” very deliberately. I had exactly the Jackson presidency and the 1850s-1860s in mind.

But I figured that HN is an educated audience, so no need to specify the few exceptions I had in mind.

BTW, 2008 and 2000 don’t even compare with 1828, or 2016. The election of 2016, and the (only partially merited) furor that has followed it will unquestionably stand out in US history, quite possibly as a prelude to our descent into another civil conflict.

And what’s rose-colored is making an oblique claim that our current political situation is nothing more than business as usual.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#615

Post by monoideism »

int_19h wrote: post #600
monoideism wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, and I've love to have something other than first-past-the-post. However, throughout our history, our two-party system has generally (with some notable exceptions) been able to work and work together. That's no longer the case. As such, it's hard to tell if the political polarization is a reflection of society, or if society is just adopting the polarization of our political elites. So I stand by my or…

Ironically, I believe it's the increase in democratic processes in American politics that's responsible for this. See, historically, when we spoke about parties, we really spoke about their respective establishments. The voters decided which one would be running the show at any given moment, but internal party politics were not readily accessible to the outsiders, and thus candidates and platforms were also vetted by…

I more or less agree with you. I think social media has also played a large role.

But don’t fool yourself that this kind of populism is only occuring on the right.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#616

Post by tekknik »

sixo wrote: post #331

It is pretty offensive that they say "reddit works better on the app" when the only reason for that is that they broke everything on mobile (on purpose?) in a series of badly-implemented redesigns. I'm never going to install it, and I have all but stopped reading it because these prompts are so obnoxious. That's probably +$ for Reddit though. I don't understand why companies constantly do stuff that serves only _them…

> I don't understand why companies constantly do stuff that serves only _themselves_, and then expect users to engage with it because it exists.

Probably because most users don’t really care and those that do make excuses like “what else am I going to use?” or “I can’t stop using reddit, how will I stay in the loop?” or any one of many other excuses. If you want reddit to change, stop using them. Entirely.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#617

Post by b112 »

Groxx wrote: post #565
b112 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with first-past-the-post. You can have 10 parties, 100 parties, in fact first past the post is designed for more than two parties. If you have people in 5 parties to vote for in your riding(district?), then first past the post is the only way it works easily! Seldom will one of those 5, get 50.1% of the vote! And why would they? The most popular wins, the people have spoken.

I... think you may have some reading to do. The subject is pretty well studied. The main reason FPTP ensures at most 2 parties is that, say you have parties 1, A, and B, where A and B are relatively similar to each other. And say A and B are together more populous than 1, like a 40/30/30 split. By splitting those 60% mostly-similar votes between A and B, both lose to the less-popular 1. It becomes in A and B's best i…

Yet, empirically, you're 100% wrong.

Canada has both Federal, and Provincial FPTP parliaments. On the Provincial level, new parties appear, and are elected , minority or majority, all the time. Constantly.

On the Federal level, things move more slowly. Yet new parties are appear, grow in popularity, and replace older parties.

Canada is not only a place of multiple parties, it is a place of constant party renewal.

And as a Canuck, I am all too familiar with vote splitting. We have party mergers. Parties that split and form new parties.

We know all about strategic voting, but because we have the concept of minority governments, and because we don't vote for who our Prime Minister is, the dynamic changes a bit.

FPTP isn't what causes two parties only, it is certain methods of government that do, mayhap combined with FPTP.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#619

Post by b112 »

Groxx wrote: post #581
jfim wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FPTP ensures at most 2 parties Canada uses FPTP, and yet there are five parties represented in the house of commons [0]. While it's true that two parties have the lion's share of seats (155 for the liberals, 121 for the conservatives), as there are 338 seats, the liberals can't just steamroll legislation unopposed; they have to get at least some approval from other parties. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_o…

Worth noting that Wikipedia uses Canada as its first example of "disadvantages" of the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Dis... But yes, Canada has soldiered on remarkably well in spite of it. USA used to be multi-party as well, the transition to 2-party takes time and there's nothing that truly guarantees it, just innately encourages . There are ways to slow it down / isolate sections.…

Yet Canada doesn't really have two dominant parties. Neither provincially, nor federally.

For example, the Conservative Party of Canada:

- formed from a merger between Progressive Conservative Party - and the Canadian Alliance

Of which, the "Canadian Alliance" appeared entirely from grass roots.

It started with the Reform Party, where the PC party lost all but two seats, but the new "Reform" party obtained significant seats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Canadian_federal_election

Which then morphed into the Alliance Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Canadian_federal_election

Which then, after the merger, with what was left of the PCs, formed the minority:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Canadian_federal_election

And then formed the government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Canadian_federal_election

It should be noted that the merger between the older PC party, and the reform/alliance party was with the Alliance party at massive strength, in the House of Commons with a respectable number of seats, and 100% in charge of the future of the merged party.

My point here is ; the willingness for people to embrace new parties, new ideas, and vote for people .. not parties, helps with real political renewal in Canada.

Further, while some provinces aren't, most are MORE dynamic than the federal level at party change. Take Quebec, which has had new parties appear and then even form governments, in a period of two election cycles.

FPTP does NOT mean 2 parties. At all.

Re: Ask HN: Why is Reddit on mobile so obsessed with making me use their app?

#620

Post by b112 »

lillecarl wrote: post #591
jfim wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FPTP ensures at most 2 parties Canada uses FPTP, and yet there are five parties represented in the house of commons [0]. While it's true that two parties have the lion's share of seats (155 for the liberals, 121 for the conservatives), as there are 338 seats, the liberals can't just steamroll legislation unopposed; they have to get at least some approval from other parties. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_o…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_system#Firs... > An absolute majority of the electorate is not needed, and is rarely achieved. As a result, power has been held by either of two parties for most of Canada's history. The party whose candidates win the second largest number of seats becomes the Official Opposition.

This is untrue. It takes the position that any conservative party, is the same party as its predecessor. See here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24219888

Post reply on HN