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

151–160 of 211 posts

Re: Digg.com is back

#151

Post by xp84 »

phailhaus wrote: post #95
xp84 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you optimize for engagement, they will radicalize themselves very quickly. Agree completely > without ads, you will get something a hundred times worse than Facebook, because there will be no pressure to moderate content at all. Disagree: without ads, moving the needle from “quite enjoyable” to “utterly addicting” doesn’t make your site twice as profitable. With ads it does. So the need that all social media has…

That has nothing to do with ads, that has to do with monetization. Every site needs to be monetized somehow. Ads scale with engagement, so engagement becomes optimized. Any monetization scheme that scales with engagement will have this issue.

So, a flat-rate subscription would not have that issue.

Re: Digg.com is back

#152

Post by scoofy »

dingnuts wrote: post #79
bognition wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget that there a billionaires at the helm of these companies putting their feet on the scale of what is shown. They are not impartial nor are the benevolent. They have a vested interest in influencing the content people are exposed to. They can hide behind the “social” components and say “we’re innocent here we just show the content people engage with” meanwhile they directly influence what content gets a c…

it doesn't even matter. I've run a small community at a loss, for "fun", for the better part of a decade and people just go elsewhere when the winds change and they find themselves no longer in an echo chamber they agree with. everyone just wants to shout into the void and be validated and it doesn't even matter who the audience is it's extremely disheartening actually

I am trying to build a Wikipedia for golf course architecture. Free shared info, genuinely about showing pride in your home club, printable yardage books if people make them…

The biggest response I get is “yea but the info on my course is blank, this sucks.”

I suspect there are only like 10% of folks who are remotely altruistic, and maybe 0.1% that would bother to even quickly edit Wikipedia if they found an error.

The vast majority of social media is carried by a few folks who genuinely want to connect and share things they love. After that the follow along is people critiquing, which is fine (I’m doing it now) but it doesn’t actually build anything.

Re: Digg.com is back

#153

Post by phire »

basch wrote: post #126
phire wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, reddit spread the changes out over years, just Decades of slow incremental changes. Even the new UI started off as optional, and the old UI is still (mostly) supported after 7 years. Digg always rolled out its changes in one big update, which replaced the old version of the site overnight. So not only did users get to see all the changes in one big slap to the fact, but they couldn't switch back to Digg v3 if t…

the earlier Digg migration was due to censorship. not being allowed to post encryption keys. pretty common playbook to allow gray and illicit and unattributed content only to clean up once youve hit critical mass.

As one of those users who migrated away around the time of the "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" incident, that's not what happened at all.

Digg never had much in the way gray/illicit content; The AACS key was only posted because it was newsworthy (and can a 128bit number even be considered illicit?)

There were a bunch of other issues at the time centering around digg power users (like MrBabyMan), and a perceived lack of action/communication from the digg staff. The disconnect had been boiling away under the surface for years.

The much bigger issue that the front page of digg at that time was increasingly just links that hit the front page of reddit 12-24 hours earlier. Users increasingly choosing to cut out the middle man and get their content directly from reddit. And at the same time, many fell in love with reddit's much better commenting system.

The censorship was just the catalyst for it all to finally boil to the surface, and the only news-worthy event to happen around that time. It might have been the final straw for some people, but for most it was tangentially related, at best.

Re: Digg.com is back

#154

Post by nextzck »

alberth wrote: post #43

I loved Digg back in the day, and as such - I paid to be a Digg Groundbreaker. I am still confused what the new Digg is (on the web) When I login, I don't see any news/articles/content. I only see the ability for me to post (and the meme image below) https://i.imgur.com/kBOAlZS.gif Note: this doesn't seem to be a problem in the app ... but why do I need to run an app when this could easily just be available on the we…

Request the desktop site, mobile version (non-app is WIP). Desktop version mostly works on mobile, some small issues with achievement display.

Re: Digg.com is back

#155

Post by alex1138 »

alex1138 wrote: post #142
edm0nd wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no way bro is mentally stable w a comment like that prob one of the Q anon and anti-vaxxer types who keeps Alex Jones websites bookmarked and only gets their news from real-patriots-of-america-news.info

Yeah but see, I don't agree with that side of things either This idea that because a) you lean one way means you support all these other things and b) that those things are even wrong all the time Given what's come out about (say) the covid vaccine (which isn't a real vaccine), I am an anti-vaxxer. (And someone like Kennedy isn't so much anti-vaccine as he's concerned about the lack of liability of the manufacturers,…

Yeah, downvote actual medical evidence, by experts

Re: Digg.com is back

#156

Post by jaggs »

xp84 wrote: post #53
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…

> if you optimize for engagement, they will radicalize themselves very quickly. Agree completely > without ads, you will get something a hundred times worse than Facebook, because there will be no pressure to moderate content at all. Disagree: without ads, moving the needle from “quite enjoyable” to “utterly addicting” doesn’t make your site twice as profitable. With ads it does. So the need that all social media has…

The problem is not ads per se, it's that in order to be effective, ads need to be intrusive. And as a site becomes more successful, it attracts more advertiser competition, which in turn forces ads to become more intrusive to cut through the noise. And that's the start of the enshitification we all know and love. :)

Re: Digg.com is back

#157

Post by nailer »

Havoc wrote: post #55
nailer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The struggle isn't people remembering Digg badly, it's people not remembering Digg at all.

In which case why not go for branding that doesn't have baggage?

It has baggage but also some value. Oldheads like me remember Digg positively, and it was certainly more upbeat (cool tech! movies! science!) that the current Reddit front page (6 angry articles about US politics and a school fight).

Re: Digg.com is back

#158

Post by kjkjadksj »

system2 wrote: post #131
kjkjadksj wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing would have happened to you 15 years ago on reddit

I've been on Reddit almost since day 1. It was not like this.

Reddit always conflated patriotism to cringe and was always very liberal and progressive.

Re: Digg.com is back

#159

Post by insane_dreamer »

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…

> "Gems" you can earn

omg, here we go again

Re: Digg.com is back

#160

Post by system2 »

RankingMember wrote: post #139
system2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said I hate gay people? I am saying what the trends and narratives are. I feel like HN users don't know how to read and understand comments.

When listing off your complaints, that it was "LGBTQ-loving" was one of them. Like what's wrong with a site being in favor of LGBTQ people?

I have known Reddit for the last 2 decades, and the LGBTQ community was never promoted like this before. I just see blatant propaganda, that's it.
Post reply on HN