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

What Reddit Got Wrong

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 284 posts

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#141

Post by mejutoco »

evouga wrote: post #61
transcriptase wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen entire (dozen reply long) comment chains on a repost (or similar content) that were re-created verbatim from an older post. Each one garnered the same hundreds of upvotes as the original, and each bot seemed to be part of a network that was farming karma through this process. Eerie was an understatement.

What’s the endgame here? Who is buying ripened accounts with lots of karma and why?

Did you see all those "where can I buy this flavor of snack in $location", or some weird anecdote involving a flavor of chips or similar. Tons of astroturfing on reddit.

I notice a lot of talking past each other in only tangentially related comments. Lately also here on hn.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#143

Post by codetrotter »

tmaly wrote: post #102
nullindividual wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Put those together and it's plausible that Reddit wants to go from a discussion site with cats to a cats feed site with meaningless discussion, and a bunch of ads mixed in. Based off of my personal experience with many subreddits that have a four digit plus subscriber count, I think reddit has largely already achieved the above goal. The amount of mindless "me too!" and "here's how that works /confidentlyincorrect"…

People are going to go somewhere. I just can't see Lemmy, Kbin, or Mastadon gaining much traction. For those old enough to remember Napster, it worked because it was centralized.

> I just can't see Lemmy, Kbin, or Mastadon gaining much traction.

Me neither, but it’s worth a shot. I have set up a public Lemmy instance. Registration is open currently. Would be nice to see a handful of people join my instance.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#144

Post by castlecrasher2 »

nullindividual wrote: post #6
dale_glass wrote: post #3

I think the idea put out by some people here that Reddit might be in the process of radically changing tracks is plausible. Reddit was always very hands-off. They had lots of very unpleasant and controversial content until their hand was forced. Overall they seem to want a site that runs itself as much as possible and over time content that required interaction and management (eg, AMAs, Secret Santa) got de-prioritiz…

> Put those together and it's plausible that Reddit wants to go from a discussion site with cats to a cats feed site with meaningless discussion, and a bunch of ads mixed in. Based off of my personal experience with many subreddits that have a four digit plus subscriber count, I think reddit has largely already achieved the above goal. The amount of mindless "me too!" and "here's how that works /confidentlyincorrect"…

I agree with you. /r/legaladvice is the peak example of this; as someone who enjoys reading threads there and generally avoids commenting as I'm no lawyer nor legal expert they've become practically unbearable as more and more ignorant people comment freely and without restraint.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#145

Post by TylerE »

MostlyStable wrote: post #139
TylerE wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To appear trustworthy. Account says buy bitcoin - user checks history and sees 7 year old account with thousands of posts, many highly upvoted, so assumes source is sane and not astroturf.

That's my point though: how often do people do that check? I don't think I personally ever have. Maybe I'm just weird though? I tend to not just go with a single user/comment/thread, but rather try to find multiple different answers and gestalt from there, so individual trustworthiness is less important.

Obviously it's higher than zero, else the market for accounts wouldn't exist.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#146

Post by jug6ernaut »

ilyt wrote: post #64
ProAm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple fix, if you use a third party app you need to have Reddit Gold. Problem solved.

I'm really perplexed why that wasn't their go-to. Then they could just add bulk tier for data-sucking apps

Because they want user's off of 3rd party apps completely. Their API pricing is such that its not realistic for anyone to use it, that is entirely intentional.

They want to completely control the experience, so they an extract as much user data as possible to drive ads.

So long as user's are in 3rd party apps those 3rd parties control the relationship, which Reddit has deemed is unacceptable.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#147

Post by castlecrasher2 »

trts wrote: post #129
mvdtnz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The amount of mindless "me too!" and "here's how that works /confidentlyincorrect" This is what gets me about all the people lately claiming that the only way to get good Google results is to append site:reddit.com - I have spent enough time looking at Reddit threads to know I would never trust them for important information. People who post on Reddit are very often just completely wrong, and often that wrongness b…

it's a fairly common and incredible experience for me to see people on reddit assert the most inane drivel that collect hundreds or thousands of upvotes and enthusiastic agreement. It makes me feel some combination of 1. Reddit is flooded with bots or brigades that seem to have cryptic agendas 2. My own reality is really far afield and the internet is bursting that bubble OR 3. The present young adult generation exis…

I also avoid the larger communities. The value in reddit is having a number of doors to open and shut at will. Can I find a better place for discussion in a specific forum? Probably, but reddit is great for being able to visit and consult with many different groups.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#148

Post by tmpz22 »

jarcoal wrote: post #73

What went wrong is that after being divested from Condé Nast, reddit went and raised a huge round that ensured they would have to go down the route of synthetic growth tactics. This whole operation could be wildly profitable with a team of 50-100 people and no major investors to appease. Instead they read the room wrong, or just didn't care, and now we're here.

> Instead they read the room wrong, or just didn't care, and now we're here.

And a couple people at the top now have Lake Tahoe vacation homes. That's an important piece to this. It justifies everything.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#149

Post by andybak »

trts wrote: post #129
mvdtnz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The amount of mindless "me too!" and "here's how that works /confidentlyincorrect" This is what gets me about all the people lately claiming that the only way to get good Google results is to append site:reddit.com - I have spent enough time looking at Reddit threads to know I would never trust them for important information. People who post on Reddit are very often just completely wrong, and often that wrongness b…

it's a fairly common and incredible experience for me to see people on reddit assert the most inane drivel that collect hundreds or thousands of upvotes and enthusiastic agreement. It makes me feel some combination of 1. Reddit is flooded with bots or brigades that seem to have cryptic agendas 2. My own reality is really far afield and the internet is bursting that bubble OR 3. The present young adult generation exis…

I’m 52 and frequent a mix of large and small subreddits.

Can you elaborate?

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#150

Post by andybak »

TylerE wrote: post #145
MostlyStable wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my point though: how often do people do that check? I don't think I personally ever have. Maybe I'm just weird though? I tend to not just go with a single user/comment/thread, but rather try to find multiple different answers and gestalt from there, so individual trustworthiness is less important.

Obviously it's higher than zero, else the market for accounts wouldn't exist.

Isn’t this begging the question though?

I.e., the thing you have just stated is exactly the thing we’re trying to figure out.

Post reply on HN