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

So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

cole-k.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 681 posts

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#181

Post by red-iron-pine »

Gareth321 wrote: post #27

I don't mind logging in, but when they remove old.reddit altogether, I'm just going to stop using Reddit. The new interface is the slimiest culmination of all the worst dark patterns and manipulative algorithms. I gave up on Facebook and I'll give up on Reddit. I have so many games and books and magazines to consume which I just don't because of this awful habit of picking up my phone to doom scroll. In fact, bring i…

same. already looking into private forums for if/when that day comes.

some of them, like old homebrewing ones, are puttering along just fine

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#182

Post by cole-k »

jdw64 wrote: post #175
cole-k wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The business model where a company owns a public community and monetizes through ads and search traffic seems to have just been a failed model. A failure in what sense? That they can't pay the bills or that they can't see the VC-desired 10X ROI? Because my impression (as a layperson) is that the Reddit of yore could have stayed afloat from ad revenue + user donations, but it wasn't turning a huge profit. Anyone els…

hmmmm, what I mean is this. There's been backlash about Reddit's ecosystem, but fundamentally they've transitioned into a business model that monetizes proprietary data for AI training. From that perspective, it's been successful. The problem, though, is that the quality of that data continues to decline. So it looks successful now, but I question whether that will hold in the future. In other words, if openness and…

It seems you're viewing this from the perspective of Reddit-the-company, and if your interests are to maximize profits then I don't really disagree with what you have to say.

I miss Reddit-the-communities, personally, whose interests as you observe seem to conflict with those of Reddit-the-company.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#183

Post by iamnothere »

wraptile wrote: post #79
LaurensBER wrote: post #17

For users, Reddit has been in a downwards spiral since the IPO. It's pretty clear that their focus is no longer on providing the best communities (see the many examples of power hungry mods, see below) or the best UX (see the deprecation of the API or the recent changes to old.reddit.com described in the post). The "product" is now selling data to LLM companies, everything else is clearly a secondary concern. It's a…

> For users, Reddit has been in a downwards spiral since the IPO. I'd argue since redesign that introduced old.reddit > to give some examples of mod abuse You're barely scratching the surface. Many subreddits are directly astroturfed and sold out. The most clear indicator is when a subreddit links to alternative communication platform like Discord - it's there to signal that mods are selling out. This is particularly…

The problem with Lemmy is that every instance seems to treat itself as an insular fiefdom that bans dissenters. It’s the same problem scaled up. Instances can cross-post in theory, but often people seem to treat the domain as a tribal affiliation, and mods may block subs or even entire domains based on petty disagreements.

I think Nostr solves this problem; individual relays may block certain accounts, but there’s no tribal signifier for preemptive blocking, and you can still get data from blocked accounts by using other relays. It would be very hard to get all relays to collaborate to fully block an account (and in any case you could spin up your own relay if this happened).

The “Satellite” client used to have a Reddit-like presentation, although they seem to have converted back to a Twitter-like feed—not sure why, perhaps it wasn’t a popular format. (The protocol is capable of Reddit-like communities.) I guess “Stacker News” is the current champion for Reddit-ish clients, although it’s more akin to HN or maybe Tildes. It’s a shame that it’s so crypto-focused.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#184

Post by superkuh »

mh2266 wrote: post #110
superkuh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually happened much later. I am talking about examples like r/gundeals being removed, lots of accounts asking about it then getting banned, etc. Please don't try to imply that "undesirables" means just actually offensive or illegal behavior, though there was that on reddit too. Much like what the environment of a public bar would be: informal and varied. It is not controversial to say that the corporate envir…

June 10 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/10/reddit-ba... > The move frustrated some commenters on the initial post. “Why is /r/fatpeoplehate banned, but /r/coontown get to exist?” asked redditor CrackheadControl. “That’s bullshit.” “Because the admins are fat, not black,” replied The_Wizard_of_Wang.

I think we can all agree that the above, and other mentioned subreddits were genuinely undesirable, no quotations needed. I was clear that wasn't what I was talking about. Your practice of just parroting these nasty people and their words doesn't actually address my point at all. Which was that it went far beyond just the nasty people to groups that weren't nasty and just made some advertisers uncomfortable.

It seems like you just want to point out nasty terrible people to stop conversation of if it was justification for doing bad things to everyone. That's a popular sentiment these days but it is wrong. Just because one group of people (or subreddits) in those punished by the authorities is actually nasty doesn't meant that all group of people punished by the authorities are.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#185

Post by programmertote »

I am like OP -- I use old.reddit.com strictly in Firefox. I'm comfortable and familiar with the old UI (been a Reddit user for as long as Reddit has been around).

I was a little annoyed by being asked to log in. But I don't want to browse 'reddit.com' because I don't like the way the new UI looks. It's hard to read and scan the first few pages quickly in the new UI (also looking at you Vanguard; you destroyed your old UI which was compact and informative).

Worse, now that I'm logged in and can use "old.reddit.com", Reddit serves me what it "thinks" I like, so now I'm trapped in the subreddit/topic bubble that Reddit selects for me (btw, it selects things poorly). I want to go to the old front page, so I click on 'Hot' or 'Top'. But Reddit still interleaves the posts with what it thinks I'd like to see.

Madness and sadness ensue.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#186

Post by et-al »

IrishTechie wrote: post #16
msny wrote: post #6

I only used old.reddit, it's a sad day as I say goodbye to reddit because the new layout is terrible and since they killed open reddit clients there is no alternative.

You can still use old.reddit, you just need to be logged in. That said, if old.reddit ever went away altogether I would stop using it too.

Logging in is enough friction to prevent me from browsing casually. Especially when I'm on a work computer.

One benefit is my productivity had a temporary boost this week until I find another site to read.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#187

Post by kotaKat »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #121
superkuh wrote: post #3

This is the second death of reddit, the penultimate one. But it stems directly from the first death in ~2015 when they accepted the massive venture capital investment and then had to try to monetize the facebook refugees which meant clearing out all the business appropriate "undesirables" including firing many beloved long time corporate employee, and switching to model where people and corporations posted to their p…

I've been on there too long, it feels like they died several times over: * CEO changes * Creation of new / infinite scrolling UI (and app) * Restricting content (banning racist subreddits, hiding NSFW from /all) * Removing popular "AMA" mod (AMA subreddit is kinda dead now, it used to be a huge event) * introduction of paid APIs / "fuck spez" campaign I'm sure there's many more but my point is it's "died" many times…

* influx of Indian users on US-based residential proxies causing the 'popular in US' feed to be nothing but nonstop Indian-based clones of popular subreddits (indianteenagers and various others)

* influx of group-specific-hate subreddits being allowed to exist freely (it's OK to hate men, but not women, from what I'm seeing on Reddit)

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#188

Post by phs318u »

seanhunter wrote: post #111
NuclearPM wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a tat?

“Tat” means miscellaneous junk. That said, the anecdote is made up or important details have been elided to make it sound more interesting than it is. Amazon doesn’t depend on whatsapp for 2fa. You can configure amazon 2fa to send an SMS and it’s possible that the poster’s mother has misconfigured her phone to claim that it needs whatsapp to read the sms 2fa message but I highly doubt even that. When I look on amazon…

Perhaps the options vary by region?

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#189

Post by dylan604 »

deltoidmaximus wrote: post #156
dude187 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it was Amazon? Sounds like a scam

The frustrating part is that since so many companies collect PII under the guise of security (and then use it for advertising) it's harder to tell if this is a legal scam or illegal scam.

>if this is a legal scam or illegal scam.

the fact this is something to be distinguished says a lot about where we are now and none of what it says is good

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#190

Post by jasonmp85 »

mothballed wrote: post #141
teeray wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish there was a way for the electorate to preempt the votes of their representatives, so this kind of lobbying would be less effective. Sure, they might try carpet bombing the airwaves with PSA campaigns, but if the people really really don’t want what the lobbyist is selling, they would still be able to rip the ballot out of their congress critter’s hands and change the vote.

Ballot initiative. Californians tried that to stop "gay marriage" (Prop 8) so the courts just told the people to fuck themselves and overturned it. Again in South Dakota for legalizing marijuana, the voters voted in favor by special initiative so the state just overturned it.

[dead]
Post reply on HN