781–790 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s popular despite itself… but It’s not successful. One of the things Spez is whining about is that they’re not profitable.
Wikipedia manages to be extremely profitable, maybe reddit execs just suck at their job and should be fired…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh, Twitter and Reddit monetize just fine with ads. The problem comes in with VC expectations where everything must 1000x or die. These are not bad businesses, they're just small compared to Facebook or Google. What's needed is mature leadership that recognizes the value comes from the community, and following the private equity playbook of strip-mining the value is short-sighted.
> Meh, Twitter [...] monetize[s] just fine with ads. Well, not anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/technology/twitter-ad-sal...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The joke definition of Web 2.0: You make the content, we make the money. Well, don't piss off the content makers, or the content consumers.
To be fair I think Reddit predates "web 2.0" by a big gap. Which is probably why they were successful; they did it before everyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Reddit was launched in 2005 (which I admit is a year or two earlier than I remember/would have guessed).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the classic network effect. People use it because other people use it.
…until people stop using it because other people stopped using it. They are playing with fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh, Twitter and Reddit monetize just fine with ads. The problem comes in with VC expectations where everything must 1000x or die. These are not bad businesses, they're just small compared to Facebook or Google. What's needed is mature leadership that recognizes the value comes from the community, and following the private equity playbook of strip-mining the value is short-sighted.
I think we have to stop chasing growth like this. It's destructive to many things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> moderators are supposed to be the people who actually take actions to steward a community, not people who claim a title and never take action, not people who abuse the privileges to push an agenda, not people who do things that aren’t in the interest of the communities they serve. Not absentee founders. I'm not the OP but that context makes it pretty obvious the OP is being figurative.
Yes, and poorly. Like the rest of the post is an argument, but a poor one.
The rest of the comment describes things that did, in fact, happen. So what's the problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Engagement is a power curve Sure, but the degradation of the UX based on these changes seems to be pretty exaggerated in my view. How many of these powerusers are only using Reddit through a 3rd party client and would quit the site over having it closed? My guess is that the answer is "not many", and Reddit is clearly banking on this... and why would I trust angry activists over Reddit's own internal analysis? More…
> and why would I trust angry activists over Reddit's own internal analysis? This is literally authortiarianism and the problem is that you can use it to justify any change by any company ever. They're the owners so they know better because they're the owners. No move can be criticized. It turns out that you end, like many that defend this and is irrationally against others protesting, with a comment about how it doe…
If trusting people with the strongest financial incentives to have the correct beliefs is "authoritarianism", then I'm an authoritarian. If there are betting markets out there that say that Reddit is going to crash and burn, then I'll trust them too. But the rando with an angry, self-interested opinion on the internet? Yeah they'll have to satisfy a pretty strong evidentiary burden before I trust them over someone with actual skin in the game.
To self-reinforce my participation in the strike, I logged out of reddit and disabled Reddit Enhancement Suite and the Old.reddit Redirect add-ons, and looking at the front page without those improvements (which I'm sure a minority of users use) it's shocking how terrible the site's UI is for the uninitiated. For the "front page of the internet" it sure looks like a bad Twitter clone.
And when I went to log out of reddit, I got https://www.redditstatic.com/youbrokeit3.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. If I log out and go to reddit.com I see it he "Popular" view with a pretty good looking UI, 4.5 "cards" per screen height, I don't think that's what someone could mean by > it's shocking how terrible the site's UI is On the other hand old.reddit.com is just this super dense early 2000s kinda looking UI that I'd never use. Am I just in the minority here on what is considered good UI? Am I looking at th…
On Apollo, I have the UI configured to omit previews of images and videos, it’s also high density. It basically looks like HN.
