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

531–540 of 681 posts

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#531

Post by ChrisRR »

giardini wrote: post #163
seanhunter wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

How does "tat" differ from "grot"?

Tat is general rubbish, but generally implies something a bit old fashioned as well. Those decorative plates and figures that old people love? Tat

Grot I've never heard of in terms of buying stuff. Grot to me just implies something dirty

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#533

Post by inigyou »

debugnik wrote: post #511
inigyou wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to moderate it

Reddit mods are volunteers as well.

Reddit's system ends up giving them enough dopamine (somehow, probably related to how users get it) to do it for a while. Forums aren't as addictive.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#534

Post by inigyou »

graemep wrote: post #517
inigyou wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some are alive, eg. LowEndTalk. They are not as general as Reddit.

They do not need to be. They are one of those things that governments and big tech do not like. They are too easy for just anyone to operate, so I think we can see more legislation aimed at making running forums harder or more expensive, like the Online Safety Act in the UK.

As programmers we assume we have to preemptively comply with every possible rule, which is a heavy burden, but I think in every case that isn't completely egregious (like 4chan) the government asks you nicely first. When I look at people with successful projects they only seem to be concerned with following the most obvious laws and the ones they have been warned about following.

An exception is copyright law. Because of massive corporate pressure, you can go to jail quickly for sharing a copyrighted work. Fortunately there's still section 230 which immunizes intermediaries.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#535

Post by ChrisRR »

nottorp wrote: post #49
Aurornis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta has not spent $2 billion on ID lobbying. That bogus number came from a complete AI slop Reddit post that was later removed. That’s why the only references you can find to it are from sites like your gadgetreview.com link that repost clickbait without fact checking anything.

It doesn't matter what they spent excatly but it's in their direct interest to raise legal moats for competitors. Kind of like what Allegedly Open AI tried with the "AI will kill us all" threats.

> It doesn't matter what they spent excatly

Yes it does. Let's not misrepresent the figures just because it doesn't suit our narrative. There's already way too much of that in the world

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#536

Post by tdeck »

I always wondered how Reddit justified the old.reddit effect. If your new design is so awful that a large percentage of users refuse to use it, and prefer the (more performant!) version from more than a decade ago, shouldn't that be a strong signal that you've made some mistakes? Why not try making the new version more appealing by investigating and fixing the issues that cause people to use the old one.

I guess credit to whoever fought internally to keep old.reddit running all these years. I'm sure it's been a candidate for the axe many times.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#537

Post by pndy »

stevenwoo wrote: post #226
mothballed wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit will delete anything remotely controversial if it contains referenced facts. They banned and deleted my account for simply stating the 5th amendment prohibits requiring incriminating yourself to exercise a right. An Ivy League educated lawyer dug up the comment one year after I posted it, told reddit I was distributing illegal legal advice, and had my whole account nuked.

I got suspended for criticizing the state of Israel’s treatment of civilians in occupied territories, but they didn’t delete my account, though I stopped logging in after a week. (Logging in retains your subscriptions). I've seen plenty of similar comments to mine so I assume it was the work of some oddball who I responded to that has an connection to somebody who works there so they could pull some strings to suspen…

> Logging in retains your subscriptions

I'm sorry, is that something that happen recently? Because when I had an account there, subscriptions were permanent

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#538

Post by pndy »

doubled112 wrote: post #98
account42 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever looked at an old reddit comment thread. + Hey how do you do thing? | -+ [deleted] | -+ Thanks, that's just what I needed.

Some of that was a reaction to Reddit closing the APIs and blocking apps.

IIRC that was also done in a fear that they'll start using comments to train AI. And some users claimed that their manually removed comments from weeks to years ago reappeared again.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#539

Post by gosub100 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #457
chuckadams wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never used to be an old.reddit die-hard, but new got so bad it chased me there to where I now use a browser extension to redirect all reddit links to old. I was convinced that the website continued to get worse so they could steer you into the app which hoovers up all your personal information. But then the app is so godawful unusable that I think we're just looking at straight-up incompetence. So yeah, I'm in the…

So, is it back to Digg, circle around to Slashdot, or is there a new kid on the block?

That solo dev who developed RES could have forked it and "stolen" the whole site if he wanted to. That would have been so epic.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#540

Post by naiveter »

user43928 wrote: post #477
reorder9695 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave up on it years ago when they killed off 3rd party clients, I have to say it doesn't seem like I've been missing much. The rare occasion I do need to see something on it, it's just full of deleted accounts and comments. I do also love how VPNs get blocked but accessing it over tor is allowed (genuinely I think allowing access over tor is great, but it seems so antithetical to everything else they've done recent…

I find it amazing how they killed off 3rd party clients many years ago, yet their first party mobile client is still garbage. It is nowhere near as good as the third party apps that were made by a single individual developer. It goes to show how a presumably large budget and sizable team is outdone by a single talented individual outside of the constraints of an enterprise environment. Or maybe Reddit is particularly…

RIP Apollo…

I doubt Reddit killed the third-party apps to improve its mobile experience. They were probably just trying to cash in on the AI hype.

Post reply on HN