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

Digg.com is back

digg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 211 posts

Re: Digg.com is back

#101

Post by leptons »

Wonnk13 wrote: post #15

I was a refugee of the Great Digg Migration to reddit some 14 or so years ago. old.reddit and adblockers as well as very aggressive curation of subreddits have kept it to an overall positive experience over the decade. I think overall I'm just less enthusiastic about the internet; everytime I come back from a week or two of backpacking without internet connection I realize how overstimulated with inane bullshit we al…

I remember Reddit before Digg users invaded it. Reddit used to be good. Digg refugees fucked it up nearly overnight. The comment sections quickly became garbage. It was like a bunch of teenagers decided to take over Reddit.

Re: Digg.com is back

#102

Post by phailhaus »

ecocentrik wrote: post #89
phailhaus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense, since it's advertisers who are the ones putting pressure on sites like Twitter to stop spreading extremist content. The problem is that humans are extremely willing to enter echo chambers where they are told they are right all the time. That's what they will do by default. So if you optimize for engagement, they will radicalize themselves very quickly. If you figure out how to power a social…

Wrong take. The social or political positions that advertisers take are all strategically calculated to maximize sales and they take those position regardless of the advertising platform. Correct take: Monetization pressure creates engagement pressure which is unnatural for human social communities outside of temporary fads and social upheaval events. In social terms Facebook, X, Truth Social... are thirsty and can o…

Like I said: any system that optimizes for engagement has this problem. Advertising revenue scales with engagement, so engagement becomes optimized. Advertisers are not picking and choosing particular policy positions to place ads on. They're targeting certain demographics, and want to make sure their ads are not next to trash content. So ironically, ads both cause companies to optimize for engagement but they also force moderation.

If you fixate on dropping ads but still optimize for engagement, you get the worst of both worlds.

Re: Digg.com is back

#103

Post by system2 »

lc9er wrote: post #85
system2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They’re are plenty of bigot-loving Reddit clones, if that’s your thing.

No, my thing is free internet. Not bigot-loving or hardcore leftist sites. On Reddit, if you say anything that is not leftist, you will get banned or deleted these days. I am a liberal, not left or right wing.

Re: Digg.com is back

#104

Post by linker3000 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #29
haburka wrote: post #5

I think that social media has been a massive experiment where we asked, what if we let capital interests subvert our desire for community to get us to watch ads? And we have learned that it’s just not a good idea. I think perhaps Digg was one of the better ones but I solemnly wish social media was mostly illegal, especially advertising based, for profit sites. I think hacker news manages to be ok since it doesn’t rel…

Digg was more of a news aggregator than “social media” which I see as user generated posts + profile interactions. As far as I remember Digg didn’t have followers or any major original content or influencers. I do think you are right about the rest as it applies to Twitter and Facebook.

> As far as I remember Digg didn’t have followers or any major original content or influencers.

Yep, some personalities on Digg had their groupies and if they posted something, all their followers would vote it up the listing, in effect the post was influenced.

That's when I bailed because genuinely interesting stuff not posted by the 'right' people had no chance of exposure.

Re: Digg.com is back

#105

Post by ASalazarMX »

system2 wrote: post #81
autoexec wrote: post #32

Digg failed because they weren't listening to what the users wanted. Reddit has been doing the same thing for a long time, and there's a large number of people looking for somewhere to migrate to. It'd be hilarious if New Digg becomes that, but I'm feeling pretty skeptical that New Digg is going to be any better. What little I've seen about New Digg talks about crypto, AI, and "Gems" you can earn which is far from a…

[flagged]

You might want to subscribe to different subreddits.

Re: Digg.com is back

#107

Post by autoexec »

scythe wrote: post #97
autoexec wrote: post #32

Digg failed because they weren't listening to what the users wanted. Reddit has been doing the same thing for a long time, and there's a large number of people looking for somewhere to migrate to. It'd be hilarious if New Digg becomes that, but I'm feeling pretty skeptical that New Digg is going to be any better. What little I've seen about New Digg talks about crypto, AI, and "Gems" you can earn which is far from a…

I think this is basically misguided. Digg failed because their commenter UX was clunky. It tried to split the baby between linear and tree comments and just ended up being a mess. Reddit had been slowly stealing traffic from Digg for years by the time of the "rebellion". In the end, Reddit became many times larger than Digg ever was. The biggest problem with displacing Reddit as such is that currently most of the use…

The UX was only part of the problem with Digg. There were also problems with what was/wasn't making it to the front page, pushing ads, the removal of customization features and killing off of third party tools which gave users more control over how they used the site, etc.

Re: Digg.com is back

#109

Post by andrewinardeer »

IgorPartola wrote: post #29
haburka wrote: post #5

I think that social media has been a massive experiment where we asked, what if we let capital interests subvert our desire for community to get us to watch ads? And we have learned that it’s just not a good idea. I think perhaps Digg was one of the better ones but I solemnly wish social media was mostly illegal, especially advertising based, for profit sites. I think hacker news manages to be ok since it doesn’t rel…

Digg was more of a news aggregator than “social media” which I see as user generated posts + profile interactions. As far as I remember Digg didn’t have followers or any major original content or influencers. I do think you are right about the rest as it applies to Twitter and Facebook.

MrBabyMan was a pre-influencer influencer.

I'm convinced he was paid to post stories to drive traffic to sites.

Of course I don't have evidence to support this. It was over 20 years ago.

Re: Digg.com is back

#110

Post by Nextgrid »

gct wrote: post #83
haburka wrote: post #5

I think that social media has been a massive experiment where we asked, what if we let capital interests subvert our desire for community to get us to watch ads? And we have learned that it’s just not a good idea. I think perhaps Digg was one of the better ones but I solemnly wish social media was mostly illegal, especially advertising based, for profit sites. I think hacker news manages to be ok since it doesn’t rel…

Let's just start shifting the overton window: let's make all paid advertisement illegal y'all.

Hard to get the political momentum to do that now that we've surrendered humanity's social fabric to the advertisement industry.
Post reply on HN