Live data from Hacker News

Disqus, a dark commenting system

web.archive.org

191–200 of 271 posts

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#191

Shameless plug: My friend and I are building a federated commenting system on top of Matrix if anyone is interested. You control the data, your users choose where they want to be signed up, and the system will not disappear overnight because a company decides to discontinue it. And of course there are no trackers/pixels. This is a hobby project that we're launching in three weeks. If you are interested, come talk to…

I think using Matrix for this is absolutely the right way to go. Does cactus conform to the threading specification? I was planning on eventually trying this myself, but felt like I should wait until the threading MSC stabilized.

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#192

Shameless plug: My friend and I are building a federated commenting system on top of Matrix if anyone is interested. You control the data, your users choose where they want to be signed up, and the system will not disappear overnight because a company decides to discontinue it. And of course there are no trackers/pixels. This is a hobby project that we're launching in three weeks. If you are interested, come talk to…

Hey, I remember your post on the Level1Techs forum about this. Best of luck!

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#193
post #103
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify relies on monopolizing your listening data. You should avoid it on the same premise. Delivering music is easy; their unique offering is the recommendation engine. There's no competition because there's no open listening data. If we could make it open, then you could have actual competition in the space (coincidentlly Spotify recommendations aren't great at the moment).

Does any other service deliver music and podcasts at a much lower price then?

I believe the price is similar, but Deezer[0] has a decent music library plus podcasts. Its recommendation engine also works a little differently. The "Flow" engine lets you listen as a radio station with known and unknown tracks thrown in with actually decent recommendations.

Much better than Spotify, which only ever "recommended" artists I've already listened to, or artists I didn't like, or genres I didn't. If you listen to a wide variety of music, it doesn't know how to handle this apparently.

[0]: https://www.deezer.com/us/

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#194

What are good self-hosted alternatives? I remember looking at Commento ( https://github.com/adtac/commento ) before, but if people have had good experiences with others I'd like to hear them.

Commento is abandoned, they have a bug that prevents login and it's gone unfixed for years: https://gitlab.com/commento/commento/-/issues/174

Unfixed for 1 year, not years. I've got an instance of Commento running on two of my sites and haven't run into / heard of this issue on Firefox. Though I'm not using the Docker image.

Maybe give better steps to reproduce the issue, as it seems to only be happening to one other person?

It does seem like Commento's development has lost its momentum (last commit was 6 months ago). The author likely isn't getting more funding from Mozilla and is focusing on their primary money-maker, the cloud-hosted service.

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#195

Shameless plug: My friend and I are building a federated commenting system on top of Matrix if anyone is interested. You control the data, your users choose where they want to be signed up, and the system will not disappear overnight because a company decides to discontinue it. And of course there are no trackers/pixels. This is a hobby project that we're launching in three weeks. If you are interested, come talk to…

I think using Matrix for this is absolutely the right way to go. Does cactus conform to the threading specification? I was planning on eventually trying this myself, but felt like I should wait until the threading MSC stabilized.

Aforementionend friend and Cactus Comments dev here.

We don't support any sort of threading yet, although Cerulean-style threading is definitely somewhere down the road. Although stuff like redactions and emoji reactions are a higher priority right now.

We're also keeping our eyes out for the upcoming spaces stuff. That might be useful for grouping comment sections.

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#196

Shameless plug: My friend and I are building a federated commenting system on top of Matrix if anyone is interested. You control the data, your users choose where they want to be signed up, and the system will not disappear overnight because a company decides to discontinue it. And of course there are no trackers/pixels. This is a hobby project that we're launching in three weeks. If you are interested, come talk to…

Hey, I remember your post on the Level1Techs forum about this. Best of luck!

Hey, thanks! It's a small web I guess.

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#197

Shameless plug: My friend and I are building a federated commenting system on top of Matrix if anyone is interested. You control the data, your users choose where they want to be signed up, and the system will not disappear overnight because a company decides to discontinue it. And of course there are no trackers/pixels. This is a hobby project that we're launching in three weeks. If you are interested, come talk to…

Can you comment on implementation / challenges of using Matrix for this?

I've been working on a dumb git-like and been needing to add syncing. Being a git-like it could just centralize via SSH, but i had also debated a P2P platform like Matrix or IPFS.

You use case UI-embedded Matrix interaction is especially interesting to me, because some of the UIs i plan for on this git-like are WASM based, Offline enabled PWAs.

Thanks for your work here, super interesting!

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#198
post #190
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can help you import your users and comments into Remarkbox if you like to move your community.

Thanks a lot for the offer but I think I'm going to decline for now. It's nothing personal or even related to your comment service specifically. For the sake of transparency here's the questions going through my mind and how I arrived at this decision based on using the free version of Disqus: - A lot of people have a Disqus account and having a low barrier of entry to comment is important. When most folks don't need…

Cool. Thanks for the feedback.

Most of the objections have been solved with Remarkbox. Users do not need an account to comment. We email you when new comments happens you can control how often by modifying your notification settings (immediately, daily, weekly digests)

The population of people with ad blockers is low, for example I'm a tech person but I do not use ad-blockers.

I hope you reconsider, I'd offer you white glove support to move.

As for spam it's not much of an issue on Remarkbox, but if it becomes a problem akismet will be integrated so you can apply your own API keys. This will filter the likely spam from the likely ham.

Have a great day!

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#199
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The web is still full of content that didn't originate from profit motive" Very true but with a few notable exceptions - successes such geek_at says he's had, others have pointed out that self-funded, self-hosted sites don't get the large visitor coverage of the big conglomerate/commercial sites. This stands to reason and it's a damn shame. It seems to me a way around this would be to have a common universally-wide…

Ooh, a taxonomy! Haven't had one of those since the death of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Directory (these are popular with library nerds, but in practice the public wants a constant feed of links + discussion in some form, whether that's slashdot, digg, reddit, or twitter)

Right, I only mentioned Dewey to illustrate my point since it's likely the best known. Of course there are many others such as Universal, Library of Congress, etc., etc. I'm not saying that any of these are suitable for the site I'm suggesting, perhaps we need to pinch the best ideas from each and tailor a new version specifically for the web.

What I will say is that taxonomy and classification systems in general are problematic and have always been so. Anyone who has ever tried to sort and classify stuff knows this! I'm forever sorting the myriad of stuff on my PCs, smartphones, etc. into various classifications and then into appropriately named directories and it's an ongoing struggle.

If I dream up too few classifications then I end up with directories that don't have sufficiently specific names to find things, too many and I'll lose items in directories whose names that are a near match but not sufficiently so. If I ignore the obvious catalog/directory naming system and use a program such as Everything that finds stuff anywhere based on name then I'll lose the ability to browse (grouped) like subjects as their names won't necessarily be sufficiently alike. It's all a damn nuisance really.

Then there's the problem of what you classify by: subject, or author's name or physical object (a major problem in a general purpose catalog).

I could write an essay about nomenclature and how it's a significant problem for the web and IT generally. For instance, if people were a little more knowledgeable about taxonomy and classification in general - and that includes both general web users and website owners - then Google could be spared millions in electricity costs due to much more accurate search results first time around.

That said, existing classification systems have their uses even in days where electronic sorting has come into its own. Take a physical book library for instance, I'll check out some subject in the catalog index then go to the book in question - and, as more often than not, I'll browse many of the nearby books on the same subject. The fact that they're grouped together by subject is very useful. If they were grouped alphabetically then this would not be possible.

I take your point that in practice the public's constant need for links, discussion etc. However, I don't see this as inconsistent with what I've suggested, especially so if one doesn't take a one-system-fits-all approach as is so often the case not only on the web but with software in general.

For instance, with Windows 8 when Microsoft moved away from the traditional IBM/CUA-like GUI to its new Metro GUI, it didn't allow users a choice to retain the old GUI. This programmer-know-best arrogrance permeates both software and the web like a bad smell and it does nobody any good.

I see no reason why the site I'm suggesting can't have multiple methods of access. The Dewey-type, search a la Everything, and also those along the lines you've suggested. Moreover, there's no reason it cannot have user comments in the same way Hacker News does.

The key to its success would be in having wide appeal - by providing both casual and sophisticated users a service suitable for each. As the saying goes, to each according to his/her needs.

Re: Disqus, a dark commenting system

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm conflicted about the free tier thing. On the one hand, I get that personal/non-commercial sites don't generate revenue - so shelling out for a comment system is unattractive. On the other hand: the whole reason that shady, dark pattern, privacy killers like disqus exist is because people won't pay for stuff. It's at least partly cultural. We'll pay for hosting, or internet access. Why won't we pay for other servi…

"Free" can't indeed be put back in its cage, but this would also apply to real-life, and yet the majority of people don't go out stealing/robbing people even though it would technically allow them to get goods for free that they otherwise would need to pay for. The problem isn't advertising in itself. The problem is that the law hasn't caught up (or doesn't want to catch up, thanks to corruption/lobbying by vested in…

> "The problem is that apparently ads don't pay enough..."

ads pay plenty, just look at the size of google and facebook (granted, they've together largely consolidated the online advertising market, but it's still huge). greed is the simpler answer here.

Post reply on HN