491–500 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was the front page of anything ever not curated?
Theres a difference between curating the best recipes or cutest cat pics, and censoring certain ideas about pressing global health crises because they don't fit a certain narrative.
> Reddit is largely a community of anonymous users that provide web content for each other.
The communities and the anonymous bit is totally the draw for most users. Most technical suggestions for monetization I read in here seem to completely ignore that (outside of marketing to a subreddit instead of directly to users, which some subreddits don’t even allow because that’s not the point of Reddit).
Suggestions I’ve read like not allowing multiple accounts, no anonymous users, etc. seem like suggestions that would kill the platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forget about “just” or not. Do or do you not think it’s a good thing for private individuals to be able to unilaterally censor what can be said in what really is the new public square?
The fact you perceive any particular message posted to any particular for profit social media site as being a “public square” is more the result of successful marketing and ignorance than reality.
Its where people go to get news and share ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m feeling bad for some unknown director at Reddit when their boss reads this thread.
Or not. More adverts and it becomes gross. Paying to avoid adverts might be an option, and while this makes it a protection racket, I’d take it over adverts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact you perceive any particular message posted to any particular for profit social media site as being a “public square” is more the result of successful marketing and ignorance than reality.
It clearly and obviously is a public square. So is Hacker News, so is Facebook. So is Twitter. Its where people go to get news and share ideas.
Hacker news, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. are private properties surrounding the public square.
You can do what you like (within the bounds of the law, because even public squares have rules) with your own property on the web, but you also have to follow the rules of any other establishment if you enter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or not. More adverts and it becomes gross. Paying to avoid adverts might be an option, and while this makes it a protection racket, I’d take it over adverts.
Reddit has gross adverts already: Huel, some self-help thing, naff Adobe ads endorsed by some Reddit superuser from a corner of the site I never read. I’d far rather they were relevant to the subs I do read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make creation of subreddits paid maybe along with phone verification? Imo, moderation logs should all be public. Lobsters does it well: https://lobste.rs/moderations
Very cool! Thanks for the link!!! It's even open source!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It clearly and obviously is a public square. So is Hacker News, so is Facebook. So is Twitter. Its where people go to get news and share ideas.
The web is a public square. Hacker news, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. are private properties surrounding the public square. You can do what you like (within the bounds of the law, because even public squares have rules) with your own property on the web, but you also have to follow the rules of any other establishment if you enter.
User pageandrew can set up their own stall by the web public area and publish whatever they wish, discuss whatever they wish with whomever they wish, also censor whoever they wish. It’s their stall, their property. Just as twitter etc are the property of others. Pageandrew.com will most likely not have the views or clicks though, and that’s what they need to peddle their outrage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web is a public square. Hacker news, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. are private properties surrounding the public square. You can do what you like (within the bounds of the law, because even public squares have rules) with your own property on the web, but you also have to follow the rules of any other establishment if you enter.
I’m not sure why this is so hard for pageandrew to grasp. I assume they think since anyone can register and use these sites, they think that makes them “public” when in fact people who register with and use these sites are paying for the privilege; with their personal data, their attention, their clicks, and their manufactured outrage that drive engagement, precisely what pageandrew is trying to do here. User pageand…
Look at Youtube. The platform has been demonetizing and deplatforming accounts for obscure and opaque reasons for years, and not just Conservatives and gun videos. The result has been people advertising their non YT content on alternative platforms. If enough people are upset with the way a platform does business, they go elsewhere.
People get kicked off of 4chan, they move to 8chan. They get kicked off of Reddit, they go to Voat. Plenty of platforms serving the persecution complex of modern Conservatives, Trump supporters, incels and the alt-right have shown up on Hacker News. Gab and Parler still exist, and are still cesspools of free speech. And that's just on the open web.
Censorship at the platform level is not a problem, because there can always be alternative platforms. Censorship at the network level is a problem. That's why I'm vehemently opposed to arguments that the government should step in and regulate all social media platforms, or force them to publish content against the will, or require a judge to sign off on any moderation action. I'd rather have parts of the web play by rules I don't agree with than have the whole thing play by one set of rules at the point of a gun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They make so much money off of Reddit, and reddit captures none of that value. It doesn't seem right.
Maybe Reddit could raise more funding and buy OnlyFans.