The case for the decentralization of online forums • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#71

Post by hayst4ck » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:22 PM UTC

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 a platform ultimately subsidized by a billionaire.

A billionaire is choosing to be a responsible owner/patron of this platform, but ultimately this platform answers to him.

HN is a "good king" platform, our king has invested in public works that we benefit from and we appreciate it.

Hacker news is good insofar as it accomplishes our kings goals which align with our own, but we still have a king, even if he is a benevolent one.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#72

Post by viksit » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

(author here)

your point is well taken. in the article, one of the main reasons i say that while it’s important to not get caught in the crypto jargon - it’s also important to not ignore the technology paradigm behind it.

giving people an incentive to run a server by the populace that uses it is a well defined and well known way to run decentralized services. staking and validating are concepts that have gotten very sophisticated - but the end result of it doesn’t need to be a “crypto token” bag holders madness. it can just be USD or USDC.

one can imagine a world where server hosts stake a sum of money, and may lose it if communities that start there run amok in some way. the users of the system also stake money for privileges (say, like discord nitro - for nicer emojis and reactions).

this pool of money - if it can run discord - can run decentralized services.

better still - it allows for a pool of money to give those who do community work and engagement a way to get incentives.

lastly - rather than ads, businesses could give end users the cost of their CAC that would otherwise go to instagram or reddit.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#73

Post by marginalia_nu » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

blantonl wrote: post #70

marginalia_nu wrote: post #68

A big reason forums centralized in the first place was the maintenance cost. I don't see anything has changed in that regard. Reddit and similar solved it through economics of scale.

How did they "solve" it, from a business sense? Don't they readily admit that they aren't profitable?

Neither were the forums of yore, to be fair. They were mostly run by volunteers.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#74

Post by hooverd » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

Greg (our hypothetical admin here) doesn't have YoY growth targets to hit. He just needs enough money to keep the servers running. He hasn't got millions in VC funding/debt.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#75

Post by hooverd » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

waboremo wrote: post #57

hayst4ck wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Mr Biden please send me money to host a Lemmy instance.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#76

Post by hooverd » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:29 PM UTC

hayst4ck wrote: post #61

rcarr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fundamentally the problem. Far too much money is being extracted from the system by landlords and banks (via mortgages) for no productive labour rather than being spent on actual productive things like internet forums, the actual cost to produce food without subsidies etc. When people have more money to spend because they’re not paying half their take home pay on rent or a mortgage, they’re generally more ame…

The money is being extracted through limiting housing supply and lack of infrastructure investments that support high density (efficient) housing. Increasing housing supply means decreasing homeowner capital and harming the major investment vehicle of a generation. That's politically untenable. Sadly, the pain will be felt by us and our children until we are able to exercise political power, which will require harmin…

Unfortunately it's much easier home owner bloc to close ranks and oppose something than it is for young people to maybe, just maybe, get in a good candidate who would change something. Going to those crucial 2 pm on a Wednesday meetings is a lot harder when you're not retired.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#77

Post by mnd999 » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:31 PM UTC

This is just Usenet. Everyone used to use it and it still exists.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#78

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:32 PM UTC

hooverd wrote: post #75

waboremo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Mr Biden please send me money to host a Lemmy instance.

[deleted]

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#79

Post by amykhar » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

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…

I wonder if something like "The Well" would work these days? Start a Reddit/Digg kind of place to share on specific topics, but charge a few dollars a month to belong. No ads, no tracking, just a place to share stuff with ohers.

Re: The case for the decentralization of online forums

#80

Post by bnralt » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

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…

That's an issue, but I don't think that's the main issue. There's plenty of ways around that if the will is there. Worst case scenario you could just create an old-school mailing list. Everyone has the infrastructure for that already in place, and plenty of close communities were built around them ~30 years ago.

However, there's two big things standing in the way:

1. The vast majority of the population - I'd say at least 99.99%, probably more - is only interested in jumping on the next big thing. People who liked and enjoyed being part of mailing list communities, handcraft html webrings, AIM, self-hosted forums, MUDs, etc. would probably be happy to go back to those if they were suddenly popular again. But when they went out of popularity in favor of current social media trends, everyone jumped ship. Everyone's following the crowd.

2. Online communities tend to not place any limits on output, so a few hyperonline individuals dominate the conversation (and in cases where moderation occurs, have methods to control the community). Hyperonline individuals don't tend to be the best socialized ones (people with healthy lives aren't spending all day on the internet).