Live data from Hacker News

The case for the decentralization of online forums

viksit.com

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#31
post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

You’re having this discussion on a marketing forum.

It's wild how many things Hacker News is the exception to, just because it has that quirky 90's charm.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#32
post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

Well a decentralized forum network doesn't preclude people participating solely in their favorite nodes.

Hard to let go of concepts like FIDONet from decades ago. There was merit there, just not enough technology to do it right then.

If it's more of a protocol like IRC or Usenet, it could work very well for both small and large communities.

I think mastodons biggest mistake is pigeonholing a Twitter replacement.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#33
post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

> What's wrong with HN

Can't buy ads for a hot... single AI farms in your area.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#34
post #29
post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

HN would not fit into any definition of centralized discussion forums I would use. To my mind HN is in that classic genre of single focus communities with a deep history of being the place to go to discuss topic X. It fits in next to sites like flyertalk, woodweb, bodybuilding.com and a million more. I think the web was definitely better when every topic had its own little community and if Reddit imploded tomorrow an…

HN is centralized. It all sits on one server run without a declared public mandate of openness like Wikipedia. A decentralized fora would be Usenet which is designed as a federation of independent servers storing and exchanging data.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#35
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN would not fit into any definition of centralized discussion forums I would use. To my mind HN is in that classic genre of single focus communities with a deep history of being the place to go to discuss topic X. It fits in next to sites like flyertalk, woodweb, bodybuilding.com and a million more. I think the web was definitely better when every topic had its own little community and if Reddit imploded tomorrow an…

HN is centralized. It all sits on one server run without a declared public mandate of openness like Wikipedia. A decentralized fora would be Usenet which is designed as a federation of independent servers storing and exchanging data.

I understand the technical point being made but it seems to be missing the point.

Why isn’t it good enough to have a whole bunch of idiosyncratic privately run discussion forum communities spread across many different websites and servers and so on?

We had that before Reddit and many examples still exist, it seems like it was closer to the ideal than Usenet ever was.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#37
The problem is that people think that decentralization somehow solves the problem.

It doesn't. In most cases, like Reddit or Twitter or Mastodon or whatever the issue isn't that something is centralized but that things actually do cost money to build and run.

Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it. That is why the various efforts to monetize the content, lock down APIs and push in your face ads happen.

The VCs that were paying for Twitter or Reddit aren't willing to do that forever - and neither of the companies are actually making profit or even not making a loss. Whether that is because the business is poorly run or some other problem is secondary but unless they start to make money somehow, they will close down at some point. It is that simple.

The article - like most that spout these 'decentralization solves everything' (same like blockchain/crypto/web3/metaverse/etc.) mantras completely ignore this problem or handwave it away. As if a decentralized system ran on fairy dust and unicorn poop and didn't need to pay for servers, electricity, wages, etc. Sorry, but that's not how the world works, folks.

If you don't want to pay money for a service then that leaves the operator with either ads - or has to pay it out of their own pocket. No "defi" or "fedi" solves that - only makes things maybe more resilient when one operator goes bankrupt or rogue. But the rest still have to pay their expenses somehow.

Also the entire premise is BS - as if online forums were somehow centralized and everyone was prevented from running their own server and community, using their own rules (no "censorship" or "cancel culture"! Yay!) and money (a-ha!). Reddit, Twitter, Facebook etc. aren't the only places where one can have a discussion or post information.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#38
post #18
post #17

We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. What's wrong with HN ? What's wrong with metafilter ? What's wrong with letsrun or doom9 ? The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses. If you can let go of the economics there is no technical - or usability - hurdle. We know…

There's nothing wrong with them, but reddit's size lets it gather a lot of extremely specific knowledge that, were all subreddits separate forums, would be lost. Sure, many of these communities are strong enough to run their own infrastructure, but more of them are not.

Before Reddit, almost immediately before, that's what Usenet was for. Google kind of ruined it by hijacking it with Groups, then Reddit took over.

Weed need a decentralized equivalent to Usenet.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#39
post #37

The problem is that people think that decentralization somehow solves the problem. It doesn't. In most cases, like Reddit or Twitter or Mastodon or whatever the issue isn't that something is centralized but that things actually do cost money to build and run . Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it. That is why the various efforts to monetize the con…

> Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it.

Every Fediverse instance I've used - and I've used quite a few - has been either so small that the total cost is a few dollars a month, or fiscally sustained by donations from users.

The problem is when people want to make a profit on their internet community. Then, no amount of community support is enough, because nobody wants to donate to your investors.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#40
post #37

The problem is that people think that decentralization somehow solves the problem. It doesn't. In most cases, like Reddit or Twitter or Mastodon or whatever the issue isn't that something is centralized but that things actually do cost money to build and run . Even decentralized architectures like Mastodon need that - and very few people actually want to pay for it. That is why the various efforts to monetize the con…

The Irish Mastodon instance is very well funded for a volunteer effort https://opencollective.com/mastodonie
Post reply on HN