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

Group chats rule the world

sriramk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 194 posts

Re: Group chats rule the world

#51

Post by kortilla »

elevatedastalt wrote: post #33
deadbabe wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the usual luxury pics, planning trips and events, pics with celebrities, and high society gossip and boiling hot tea, these women are very sexual. Nearly all are married but of course that doesn’t stop them from having their men on the side. A lot of these men look like male models and the chat is littered with nude pics showing off how very well endowed they are. If you’re very good looking with good soci…

> 9 inches or more Ah, we are talking of internet inches I guess? The vast vast vast majority of men don't have 9" inches or more.

Yes, being rich affords you access to the right side of the bell curve

Re: Group chats rule the world

#52

Post by haolez »

ibaikov wrote: post #47
haolez wrote: post #38

I had an interesting experience with a WhatsApp group recently. In the past, WhatsApp groups had an upper limit of 256 participants. They then increased this to something much bigger (not sure how much, but at least 1,000). Anyway, I was a CTO and was a member of a group chat for CTOs. We had very insightful and rich discussions about topics that affected our roles, like vendor reputation, frameworks, team management…

I had similar experience on Telegram where groups that grew in size plummeted in quality. I just came up with the following concept reading your comment: a slowmode, so that people can write once every x minutes, but others who are mostly read-only can give 'points' to those writing messages in the moment to bypass slowmode, basically they are voting for quality discussions to continue.

This would need to be dynamic, since a delay that works for a group of 1,000 would probably clutter a group of 100,000. And if all users post at the exact same time, slow mode doesn't help.

But maybe there's value in solving this problem :)

Interesting idea!

Re: Group chats rule the world

#53

Post by schmichael »

I'd like to say it was the 2016 elections, 2020 pandemic, and 2022 Musk acquisition that killed Twitter for me, but the truth is exactly what this article points out: I replaced nearly all of my traditional public social media usage with group chats in that time period. Those events just made the transition much easier!

I use Mastodon occasionally and Reddit only as a passive consumer. I miss virtual communities a bit; as a youth in rural Illinois they were extremely formative for me. I hope disconnected folks still find their virtual communities, public or private, but I think I'm just in a different phase of my life where de-emphasizing them comes naturally. It's hard for me to disentangle whether it's me or the Internet that's changed, but from the positive reaction here and in group chats to this article: I feel safe assuming I'm at least not alone.

Re: Group chats rule the world

#55

Post by baq »

> Salons and groups have always existed but why the recent shift to private discourse?

...what?

There is nothing recent about this and there hasn't been any shift. I've had a private chat with the same people on different platforms for more than 20 years now. Then there have been facebook closed groups and the iMessage blue/green segregation fiasco and many, many more.

> Which leads to the question: what makes one of these work?

High SNR, shared social norms.

Re: Group chats rule the world

#56

Post by vundercind »

Why the recent shift?

1) Everything being in public was the aberration. Purely a post-Facebook thing.

2) … and also it was never really true, dig past the surface for almost any interest and you’ll find private forums, private sections of forums, private chat groups, groups of people hanging out IRL and not posting notes online, et c. When has this not been the case?

Re: Group chats rule the world

#57

Post by mrweasel »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #13

On shared rituals, the ones I like the most are 1. Good mornings. Where it's a norm to post "Good morning" or equivalent at the start of your day. It signals that you're continuing to participate and value the group. 2. @Welcomes. When a new member joins, they are @-ed with a welcome message by the users currently present. It helps expand the join->engage funnel. Some groups have a lot of people show up and then neve…

We do the "good morning", if we remember. It's just as much a way to signal that you're present. We're only a few, 5 to 7 depending on the day, and it's via IRC so it's hard to know if people are present or if it's just their bouncer.

It's just a private IRC channel, no bots, invite only and we all know each other from previous jobs or consulting gigs. Once in a while we'll track down an old co-worker who we miss or wonder what happened to, and invite them. Some pop in ever so often, some only once and others have ended up sticking around 24/7 (the core 5/6 people who are almost always around).

With the continued degradation of pretty much everything online that little IRC channel has become my favorite part of the internet. We can talk privately about politics, projects, home life and we support each other in our new jobs.

Re: Group chats rule the world

#58

Post by gedy »

deadbabe wrote: post #20
irrational wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell more. How was it different than a normal group chat?

Aside from the usual luxury pics, planning trips and events, pics with celebrities, and high society gossip and boiling hot tea, these women are very sexual. Nearly all are married but of course that doesn’t stop them from having their men on the side. A lot of these men look like male models and the chat is littered with nude pics showing off how very well endowed they are. If you’re very good looking with good soci…

> good social status

Seems very low class to me, no thanks.

Re: Group chats rule the world

#59

Post by baby_souffle »

haolez wrote: post #52
ibaikov wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had similar experience on Telegram where groups that grew in size plummeted in quality. I just came up with the following concept reading your comment: a slowmode, so that people can write once every x minutes, but others who are mostly read-only can give 'points' to those writing messages in the moment to bypass slowmode, basically they are voting for quality discussions to continue.

This would need to be dynamic, since a delay that works for a group of 1,000 would probably clutter a group of 100,000. And if all users post at the exact same time, slow mode doesn't help. But maybe there's value in solving this problem :) Interesting idea!

> But maybe there's value in solving this problem :)

Traditional topics/channels?

The reason why sites like HN/Reddit ... etc "work" is because you've got to click into the comments on some post to see those comments. You're not going to the hacker news front page and just getting _all_ the comments nor is some algorithm deciding which posts/comments you should see and which you'll never know about.

Threads work - to a point - but at some meaningful scale, you need all these CTOs on a server with sub-sets of them in various channels dedicated to particular conversational themes.

The more accessible a community becomes, the more important consistent moderation is... otherwise it'll just go downhill fast.

Re: Group chats rule the world

#60

Post by dingnuts »

lanstin wrote: post #34
bnegreve wrote: post #26

> every group chat has a n-1 group containing everyone except that annoying member. And if you think your chat doesn’t have such a group, oh boy, do I have some bad news for you. There are more like 2^n - 1 subgroups, i.e. as many subgroups as the there can be. If you think you're safe because you're already part of one subgroup that complain about the people not included in this particular subgroup, I also have some…

You are safe anyways by the "sticks and stones" principal. Worrying about what other people think about you, unless they are your immediate family, is a pretty inefficient use of time.

this is great advice for people who want to have no friends.

You should care about what the people you respect think about you, because they are people you hold in high regard. They matter. The key is to dismiss the opinions of people who suck

> unless they are your immediate family

this is a terrible exception. Sometimes your immediate family sucks and you shouldn't care what they think of you (imagine that you're gay and they're all homophobes)

as with most things, there's a balance to be struck. Sometimes you should care what other people think of you, if you don't want to be bitter and alone. Other times it's better to let the haters hate.

Post reply on HN