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

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Digg.com is back

#191

Post by LexiMax »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #177
LexiMax wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will happily parrot the most vile blood libels about entire groups of people they don't know. All because they're terrified that the next woman they leer at might not have been born with the genitals they expected.

Or possibly I think this is a terrible thing to do to children?

Indeed. If you leer at a young girl, you need the reassurance that they're a biological girl and not a boy on hormone blockers.

Is that why you're so obsessed with your neighbors kid? Or do they even exist?

Re: Digg.com is back

#192

Post by ifyoubuildit »

antisthenes wrote: post #189
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with most content posted after ~2018-2019 being extremely low quality, outside of some niche subreddits. I've read plenty of garbage on Reddit, but what percentage of Reddit content since 2018 do you think you've seen? How many zeros after that decimal point?

That's not how sampling works. That's the equivalent of asking what % of Google Search results have you seen in order to say that there's been a drop in result quality.

Were you doing some kind of study? Cause I don't think reading your favorite subs on reddit is how sampling works either.

Even (or maybe especially) if you spend an unhealthy amount of time on the site, your sample is probably nowhere near representative of the whole.

Re: Digg.com is back

#193

Post by phailhaus »

xp84 wrote: post #151
phailhaus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Nobody has figured out how to get people to pay for social networks though, at scale. The free ones destroy the competition.

Re: Digg.com is back

#194

Post by smileybarry »

autoexec wrote: post #150
smileybarry wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gems is deceptively named but it's essentially just for posting interesting things that gets discussions or Diggs, or being early to post something. It has nothing to do with crypto etc. Source: I've been using the app since the alpha started.

What are Gems good for? Bragging rights? If you earn enough of them do they grant you special privileges? Can you spend them on anything? Can you buy them with real money? Are gems their current/future monetization strategy? They're already charging $5 for usernames ( https://www.androidpolice.com/digg-returning-wants-you-to-pa... )

That post is very outdated and was in the pre-alpha stage. At the time you paid (once) to join a sort of staging ground where they also discussed features with users, and asking what they'd prefer. And that buy-in pre-alpha period also ended when the alpha app launched.

They didn't really "sell usernames", unless you also call buying a paid app with social features "buying a username".

And as far as "Gems", looks like bragging rights. This is what clicking (?) currently says:

> Gems are earned by being amongst the very first to Digg a post that trends across the platform. The earlier you are to discovering and Digging the post, the more Gems you’ll earn.

Re: Digg.com is back

#195

Post by throwawaylaptop »

LexiMax wrote: post #191
throwawaylaptop wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or possibly I think this is a terrible thing to do to children?

Indeed. If you leer at a young girl, you need the reassurance that they're a biological girl and not a boy on hormone blockers. Is that why you're so obsessed with your neighbors kid? Or do they even exist?

Oh Jesus. Yes, every person that cares about children not getting life altering surgery is a pedofile.. makes sense. They ran out of normal obvious kids of the gender they like, and now they're worried they might accidentally fall for a freak of modern medicine. You caught me.

Re: Digg.com is back

#196

Post by throwawaylaptop »

Ralfp wrote: post #188
throwawaylaptop wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only once I realized there's people hurting children that won't let you even talk about it, calling others bigots.

See, this is what I was going at above. You are not really concerned about wellbeing of the children. You are just obsessed about this single (manufactured) issue.

I use the insane, gross, evil thing they approve of to remind them that while they throw around the bigot word at normal people, they are the true gross evil in the world, but regardless of that, just their non approval of healthy sane normal people makes them the bigots.

Re: Digg.com is back

#197

Post by LexiMax »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #195
LexiMax wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. If you leer at a young girl, you need the reassurance that they're a biological girl and not a boy on hormone blockers. Is that why you're so obsessed with your neighbors kid? Or do they even exist?

Oh Jesus. Yes, every person that cares about children not getting life altering surgery is a pedofile.. makes sense. They ran out of normal obvious kids of the gender they like, and now they're worried they might accidentally fall for a freak of modern medicine. You caught me.

Absurd, isn't it? Hopefully, now you have some appreciation for how ridiculous you sound spewing blood libels.

Re: Digg.com is back

#198

Post by throwawaylaptop »

LexiMax wrote: post #197
throwawaylaptop wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh Jesus. Yes, every person that cares about children not getting life altering surgery is a pedofile.. makes sense. They ran out of normal obvious kids of the gender they like, and now they're worried they might accidentally fall for a freak of modern medicine. You caught me.

Absurd, isn't it? Hopefully, now you have some appreciation for how ridiculous you sound spewing blood libels.

Except mine makes sense and the other doesn't.

What they're doing to children is some of the worst things you could imagine doing to a child. The children don't know better, and the adults the allow it all seem to basically be borderline insane/gay themselves too.

Re: Digg.com is back

#200

Post by Ralfp »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #196
Ralfp wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, this is what I was going at above. You are not really concerned about wellbeing of the children. You are just obsessed about this single (manufactured) issue.

I use the insane, gross, evil thing they approve of to remind them that while they throw around the bigot word at normal people, they are the true gross evil in the world, but regardless of that, just their non approval of healthy sane normal people makes them the bigots.

"Every madman thinks all other men mad"
Post reply on HN