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

Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 451 posts

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#441

Post by stale2002 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #430
stale2002 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some people LIKE to come across differing opinions. Some people prefer having an open marketplace of ideas, where they can be challenged, and come across opinions and ideas that they wouldn't otherwise in real life.

Absolutely, but I think you're being a bit naive. I like to hear different opinions (I like that /r/ChangeMyView is a thing), but there's a difference between reading a different opinion and reading "Kill yourself, faggot". If you advertise being a place of COMPLETE free speech (Like Voat), you're gonna get assholes that think free speech means having a place to be an asshole.

And some people have a thick skin and are fine with others insulting then.

Places like 4chan are fairly popular, even if the discourse is often mean. Sometimes things can be so mean that it is simply ridiculous, and therefore funny, and therefore not really insulting or offensive.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#442

Post by optimuspaul »

roselan wrote: post #341
optimuspaul wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the joke comments and puns. It makes me sad when they are down voted.

Me too, but there is a place and time for everything. I believe allowing them would open a floodgate and start a race for reputation.

There is already a race for reputation, it's just for who is the smartest know it all nerd.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#443

Post by Angostura »

wldcordeiro wrote: post #259
Angostura wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What killed Digg though, wasn't any change in look at feel, as much as a fundamental change in content policy. It went from 'users submit stuff and upvote it' to 'content publishers can automate a firehose of their stories into the system for a price' people didn't like that.

I'm seeing a similar parallel to Reddit's new profiles though. Not exactly the same but it's a move to appease the content publishers that has been angering their core userbase.

Agreed. I think the profile initiative does feel quite Digg v4

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#444

Post by nameless912 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #389
nameless912 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voat is a complete shithole these days unfortunately. It was very quickly overrun by disgruntled members of Reddit's alt-right fringe community.

Imzy attacked the problem from the other side of the spectrum and failed even harder. The problem is that neither the "unrestricted free speech" nor the "absolute safe space" models scale. Nor, ultimately, promote their putative goals.

So, the only answer is a bunch of hermit kingdoms with their own rules and incentive structures? You mean like the rest of the internet? Who'd have guessed.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#445

Post by hycaria »

tptacek wrote: post #439
hycaria wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a simplistic point of view. People not often say "black people are bad, gays are bad, muslims are bad, women are bad". I am moderator on a national sub on reddit, and it's a very difficult question. A few examples : - What are you supposed to do with people who think it's unfair that men can be tricked in impregnating a woman and sued for child support ? Is this sexism ? - What are you supposed to do with people…

Since attempts to establish the genetic inferiority of specific races and ethnicities has been a bedrock of organized racism for centuries, yes, clearly abuse of race/IQ research can be "racial hate speech". Now, that's a term you didn't define. But whatever definition you choose, clearly articles from Der Stürmer will fit comfortably into it. Obviously that begs the question of what "abusive" recourse to race/IQ stu…

See here for illustration : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14917702

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#446

Post by aweiland »

bnolsen wrote: post #397
Angostura wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What killed Digg though, wasn't any change in look at feel, as much as a fundamental change in content policy. It went from 'users submit stuff and upvote it' to 'content publishers can automate a firehose of their stories into the system for a price' people didn't like that.

For me Digg's real problem was that a small cadre of politically active users figured out how to hijack the site and steer it the way they wanted. That's why I left. Reddit did a way better job of sandboxing those people.

The Orwellian named Digg Patriots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg_Patriots

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#447

Post by dredmorbius »

nameless912 wrote: post #444
dredmorbius wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imzy attacked the problem from the other side of the spectrum and failed even harder. The problem is that neither the "unrestricted free speech" nor the "absolute safe space" models scale. Nor, ultimately, promote their putative goals.

So, the only answer is a bunch of hermit kingdoms with their own rules and incentive structures? You mean like the rest of the internet ? Who'd have guessed.

I'm not sure that's the only option, but at the very least, a mix of contexts, spaces, and communities seems likely.

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#448

Post by skinnymuch »

CM30 wrote: post #266
pmoriarty wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of a single popular site redesign that actually made the site better. They're almost inevitably worse, usually much worse. A common failing is trying to make the design more shiny and pretty while decreasing functionality, dumbing the site down, adding bloat, and slowing the site down to a crawl. I really hope Reddit does not go down this road, because they really have a good thing going now. It would b…

> trying to make the design more shiny and pretty while decreasing functionality, dumbing the site down, adding bloat, and slowing the site down to a crawl. Another good example of this is a car forum called AudiWorld after Internet Brands took it over. Initially, it ran on a super minimalistic forum script that loaded incredibly quickly and worked well for the community. It was certainly ugly yes, but it's what the…

It can't be worse than Digg, can it? Just as bad seems like the worst you can realistically get. Digg lost what, 95% or more of its users within months?

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#449

Post by tim333 »

feelix wrote: post #359
NumberCruncher wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you understand what a pump-and-dump scheme is and how it works, you see the word with different eyes.

Do you have any links or a succinct explanation of how it works, then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

Re: Reddit raises $200M at a $1.8B valuation

#450

Post by virgilp »

pluma wrote: post #384
virgilp wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of a single popular site redesign that actually made the site better. Seriously? How about Google.com? Google Maps? Gmail? Apple.com? CNN? Uber? Surely you must believe at least some of those made the site better...

Apple.com is a marketing site. It's essentially a brochure that is expected to change completely for every new release of the product. The only major Google Maps redesign was from the original boxy low-fi design to the modern pan & zoom gestural design with overlays. The redesigns after that were mostly incremental and rarely affected the general look and feel of the site. There have been a number of design changes r…

You can claim anything that you don't dislike is "not redesign", but come on, if adding tabs on top of Gmail was not redesign, I don't know what is. And, just look at gmail now vs. 2004, how can you say it's not redesigned?

Any large, sudden redesign is heavily disputed - that much is obvious, and for good reason, since it changes habits. Maps itself goes through continuous redesign, but each modification is "incremental" as you call it. The end result is fairly drastically changed if you look many years back, but well.... I guess it only had incremental redesign, all along the way.

I guess what I'm saying is that if reddit launches one big-bang "completely new reddit" - yeah, I agree, it's very likely to fail. But if they incrementally change it to something else, and backtrack on the bad decisions - few people will notice the radical change, they'll just remember the many small ones.

Post reply on HN