The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#51

Post by adventured » Fri, Jul 03, 2015, 9:06 PM UTC

logn wrote: post #23

Given the market cap of Facebook is $245 billion and it has 1.44 billion active users, then each user is $170 (170 == 245/1.44). If each user generates $1 for Facebook each quarter, that's $4/yr which is an annual return of 2.3% (2.3 == 4/170). I'm not sure where I stand on calling users "sharecroppers". Seems a little unreasonable. But the economics of it are interesting and concerning.

With 1.44 billion monthly actives, and going with the per user averaging, it comes out to ~$2.45 per user per quarter (as of the most recent quarter; it's safe to assume that will continue to increase for now).

They're generating closer to $10 per year for Facebook. Your annual sales take jumps to 5.9%. A year from now that will probably be closer to 7%. PE ratios usually compress with time due to slowing growth. I would be comfortable predicting that Facebook will eventually get this calculation up to 15%+. Their PE ratio right now is 80, which is producing a massively warped calculation on the return %, as that PE compresses heavily over the next ten years, their return per user will skyrocket.

If their PE ratio were a more sane 40 right now, this number would already be at ~12%. Double their annual income to $6 billion and their sales to $30 billion over a few years, drop their PE to 35 ($210b market cap), boost their user base to 2 billion, and it jumps to 14%. A very plausible outcome four years out. This is all calculated off of sales of course, not income.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#52

Post by nickstinemates » Fri, Jul 03, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

gesman wrote: post #7

Also - lets not forget that chat room monitors were willing to put up with the AOL TOS, hours and conditions for one good reason: that sweet feeling of power to kick and ban other people (and likely to brag about it to their buddies).

Oh the days of phishing those accounts and writing punters.

It's definitely what got me in to programming. Vb4ever.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#53

Post by navait » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 2:28 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #41

saint_fiasco wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work laws are weird like that. There are certain things you can't consent to even if you really want to. For example, you can't agree to work for less than minimum wage, you can't agree to work for free to get rid of a debt, you can't agree to have sex with someone in exchange for money. These things apply even if you voluntarily sign a contract saying you consent.

It's all relative depending on your location any or all of those could be legal.

It's an article about US labor law.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#54

Post by reagency » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 3:00 AM UTC

yk wrote: post #18

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to look up the current reddit debacle: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... I'm still not sure what's going on, though.

As far as I understand, reddit did introduce a new search function yesterday, which pissed off mods of several subreddits. [1] Additionally they fired(?) an employee who acted as a interface between the r/IAmA mods and the people who do amAs [2], who are usually not redditors. So the mods of r/IamA set there sub to private. That means that only invited users can see the sub. From there quite a few other mods did decl…

1 is a long confusing extended metaphor, not an explanation of the search issue.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#55

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 3:26 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #49

Karunamon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the latter doesn't stifle discussions already in progress. It's the difference between saying "you can't talk about this here" and "you can't talk about this at all".

That doesnt seem meaningful, if a mod happens to catch it fast no one sees it, if she catches it slow, people can begin and continue a discussion. If it was based on any kind of fundamental right of discussion, it is hard to imagine moderator attention and reflex speed factoring in to the underlying principles. Plus, moderators already use bots to instantly pre-ban things things and then go through and manually white…

I don't see why the mods ever have to know the names of those who upvoted (or downvoted) to be able to ban them. A message would be sent out to those who were banned, letting them know why, and if they choose to reveal themselves as having made the bad vote... no one's doxxing them except themselves.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#56

Post by MichaelCrawford » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 4:32 AM UTC

larcher wrote: post #25

Having trouble getting past the author's failure to distinguish between the web and the Internet... :-P

I understand that it is common for facebook users to think that facebook is the internet.

Many do not understand that email has anything to do with the internet.

I was in a psyciatric hospital when I pointed out to the staff that I needed to renew my domain names. They told me I could not do that so I asserted my right to manage my own fincial affairs, as is the law. the staff of that particular hospital know about that law so they will arrange for you to pay rent and the like.

But they regarded my talk of domain names, registrars and renewals as delusionals. Then I started screaming and crying "But I am a webmaster!" You are going to throw me out on the streets."

"We'll see."

This went on for a few days then "WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!"

The next day one of the staff told me that a fellow patient suggested he put my name into Google.

He apologized, then said "Sometimes I forget why I work here."

Then he set me up on a staff computer so I could renew.

Lots of mental hospitals have wifi or desktops.

Others have no eay to contact the outside world at all.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#57

Post by jsmthrowaway » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 4:57 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #24

Karunamon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.

Indeed. I think I read once that HN weights votes or comment positions by how often someone is drawn in by political "honey pot" stories. I don't know if it's true, but it at least suggests less drastic alternatives to banning for voting.

Is that it? No matter my score, I am usually at the bottom of a field of identical comments. I've been below comments deep in the gray more than once.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#58

Post by mingus68040 » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 5:22 AM UTC

mcuk2k wrote: post #33

chc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, in my experience, Reddit is much more rife with low-quality posting and bandwagoning than moderator abuse. It happens on rare occasions, but most accusations of moderator abuse I've seen have turned out to be nothing more than some first-world anarchists trying to stick it to the man and a bunch of other people bandwagoning on. Meanwhile, most subreddits with more than 10k posters are just awful because…

I read a few subreddits that might be considered outsiders. I get the impression that Reddit is slowly being subverted. Subverted by the sort of people that might have a strong voice on Tumblr and Twitter. Slowly censoring anything that's undesirable to their world view.

Being "subverted" by a different community would be the best possible outcome for reddit. It's a proud soapbox for white supremacists and misogynists to virulently spread hatred under the guise of "free speech". If this "community", seemingly comprised entirely of self-entitled white men in their 20s, were scattered to the winds tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#59

Post by beedogs » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 6:10 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #26

Karunamon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.

I don't know, in my experience, Reddit is much more rife with low-quality posting and bandwagoning than moderator abuse. It happens on rare occasions, but most accusations of moderator abuse I've seen have turned out to be nothing more than some first-world anarchists trying to stick it to the man and a bunch of other people bandwagoning on. Meanwhile, most subreddits with more than 10k posters are just awful because…

In my experience, it's rife with both.

Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)

#60

Post by shubb » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 6:13 AM UTC

mingus68040 wrote: post #58

mcuk2k wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read a few subreddits that might be considered outsiders. I get the impression that Reddit is slowly being subverted. Subverted by the sort of people that might have a strong voice on Tumblr and Twitter. Slowly censoring anything that's undesirable to their world view.

Being "subverted" by a different community would be the best possible outcome for reddit. It's a proud soapbox for white supremacists and misogynists to virulently spread hatred under the guise of "free speech". If this "community", seemingly comprised entirely of self-entitled white men in their 20s, were scattered to the winds tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

I don't disagree but there is a beautiful irony to posting that here.