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

The case for the decentralization of online forums

viksit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#51

Post by edgyquant »

janoc wrote: post #42
NoraCodes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, b…

>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. And that is somehow invalidating what I have said? Sure, if you have 10 users then your costs are going to be negligible and you can probably sustain it from your own pocket or donations. But good luck running a larger/popular service l…

Seems like a failure of architecture or deployment on mastodons part. If you want your service to be both self hostable and widespread you have to make the self hosting just work.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#52

Post by janoc »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #38
Miraste wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Usenet was literally decentralized before this was even a buzzword.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#53

Post by edgyquant »

rsync wrote: 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…

Hacker News is in the same camp as any of the big platforms-it’s entirely subsidized by a billionaire VC or it would not exist the way it does.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#54

Post by CPLX »

gman83 wrote: post #50
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think something like Wikipedia could potentially be a decent model for an centralized but open version of reddit. Have donation drives to keep the servers running once a year, and have something like the five pillars & an open license to ensure the project won't be rug pulled from the community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

I guess. Wikipedia has a very distinct and string moderator culture though. Do we want like every single online forum to take a similar approach?

I think a ton of random different communities with quirks and different approaches is the best option of all.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#56

Post by janoc »

Berticus12 wrote: post #21

Moderation and ownership should go hand and hand. Moderators in Reddit essentially have fake sweat equity for their efforts. There has to be a better model and I think decentralization is key.

You forgot to say why and how exactly.

A decentralized network won't magically remove the need for moderation or make the job less onerous or more attractive to do. Only now the server/instance owner is not only paying for the hosting out of their own pocket, now they are (also legally in many cases!) responsible for the content moderation too!

What a win! That totally makes it super attractive to do.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#57

Post by waboremo »

hayst4ck wrote: post #47
janoc wrote: 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…

> and very few people actually want to pay for it. I think this is a core assumption that I'm not sure I believe in. Works for the public deserve public (distinct from government) funding. There are many things that say "if you don't give us money, we can't continue to exist." "We need enough money to function" is a completely different sell than "we want to 1000x our investors investments." Reddit's enshitification[…

And now we get to actual solutions: public funding. But it's something a lot of people don't want to admit. We skirt around the issue, this relies on donations, that relies on the goodwill of the owner, all of it to ignore the fact that what we really want is public funding for crucial software such as forums/social networks (and hosting them).

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#59

Post by andreygrehov »

I think decentralization is important.

Many centralized forums these days have their own "narrative". It could be of a political or economical nature. For example, each moderator on Reddit is biased towards what should and should not be published on "their" sub-reddit.

Here on HN unconventional wisdom is not welcomed either. Posts get easily downvoted to the bottom and then visually suppressed, hinting other readers: "hey, look, this opinion is not important, feel free to either ignore it or downvote". This visual suppression is, imho, a subconscious manipulation. Why nudge readers toward a certain direction? Let everyone decide on their own.

The current standard is "agree with me or you’re a white supremacist tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist and a nazi". Alternative opinion is akin to a crime.

Twitter is moving in the right direction (unconventional wisdom). There are very few bots left (barely see any). Irrespective of your political spectrum, nobody's going to ban you. Everyone is welcome on the platform. Twitter is about to start sharing ad revenue with content creators, which is a fantastic move in my opinion.

Lack of moderation brings everything into a balance – a self-organized chaos which is the closest thing to what our everyday lives are.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#60

Post by pessimizer »

rsync wrote: 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…

> The problem is the mistaken notion that these can be big businesses.

HN isn't a business at all. It only loses money, and in return generates some sort of goodwill or authenticity for its owners, who are extraordinarily wealthy. All problems can be ignored if we can always rely on rich people to give us what we want.

Post reply on HN