Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#191

Post by unsupp0rted » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

jboy55 wrote: post #183

dghlsakjg wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Your initial comment here was unsupported by real world examples, and used a lot of rage-bait buzzwords. When asked to put up a concrete example, no-one called you a fascist/nazi/transphobe in the example. They banned you for, according to you, "just asking questions" on a country specific coronavirus subreddit. Your tone comes off as "I'm right, they're wrong. I'm the victim here!"

"Just asking questions" is the biggest red flag of ill intent, its not doubt I would ban someone for resorting to that. Especially if we look at the facts given in the comment. " saying at the time we didn't yet know how many doses and on what schedule of the vaccine would be needed." "I messaged the mods to explain that I was triple-vaxxed " So we can infer from this post that this happened sometime after Aug 2021.…

It would be doubly damning if GP hadn't made up the "just asking questions" quote as if I had said or implied it. Or if you hadn't made up the "how we shouldn't have a mandate?" quote as if I had commented in either direction on that.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#192

Post by slg » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #174

slg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be joking, but the specifics insults there are indicative of a certain worldview. OP only used words that would come from a small percentage of the population and insults that wouldn't be relevant on most subreddits. For example, these wouldn't be the insults you would here from anyone who qualifies as centrist or anything further right unless you are legitimately doing something wrong. There are also plenty…

> And if someone calls you a "transphobe" on some niche gardening subreddit, odds are you are doing something obnoxious and off topic that would upset the mods regardless of whether you are actually a transphobe. Gaslighting in action. To earn the Transphobe badge, all you have to do is complain about anyone else bringing up the subject of trans-anything on a niche gardening subreddit. Or refuse to boycott Harry Pott…

>To earn the Transphobe badge, all you have to do is complain about anyone else bringing up the subject of trans-anything on a niche gardening subreddit. Or refuse to boycott Harry Potter.

Yes, this is the "obnoxious and off topic" behavior I was talking about. The mods of a niche gardening subreddit likely don't want to moderate a debate about your refusal to boycott Harry Potter.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#193

Post by mistermann » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

jboy55 wrote: post #183

dghlsakjg wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Your initial comment here was unsupported by real world examples, and used a lot of rage-bait buzzwords. When asked to put up a concrete example, no-one called you a fascist/nazi/transphobe in the example. They banned you for, according to you, "just asking questions" on a country specific coronavirus subreddit. Your tone comes off as "I'm right, they're wrong. I'm the victim here!"

"Just asking questions" is the biggest red flag of ill intent, its not doubt I would ban someone for resorting to that. Especially if we look at the facts given in the comment. " saying at the time we didn't yet know how many doses and on what schedule of the vaccine would be needed." "I messaged the mods to explain that I was triple-vaxxed " So we can infer from this post that this happened sometime after Aug 2021.…

> "Just asking questions" is the biggest red flag of ill intent

I consider the playing of the accusation of the JAQ wildcard (an immediate victory in the minds of some subsets of observers) to be a much more dangerous (often literally unrealizeable) cultural norm, it is a go to staple technique in any delusional internet rhetorician's toolkit.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#194

Post by 1270018080 » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

unsupp0rted wrote: post #51

deergomoo wrote: post #18

Good read. Interesting that the author’s takeaway is that folks consider Digg v4 to be a catastrophic launch because of the myriad technical issues. I don’t even remember there being technical issues, I just remember logging in one day to find a website I enjoyed replaced with a bunch of crap I wasn’t interested in.

This is why I’m excited for the Reddit third party apps change. In a few years nobody will remember that this is what precipitated the fall of Reddit. It’s already turned into an echo-chamber of nonsense, ruled by all-powerful mods to whom every user is a racist transphobe nazi homophobe enemy. Even the smaller subs catch the contagion year over year. I’ve been a Redditor since before the narwhal baconed at midnight.…

Users with this attitude all moved to Voat where they did silly transphobe nazi homophobe things. In order for a social media site to grow in quality beyond 4chan-tier users, they have to implement strong moderation. HN is doing the same thing.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#195

Post by adamrezich » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

unsupp0rted wrote: post #178

jstarfish wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if someone calls you a "transphobe" on some niche gardening subreddit, odds are you are doing something obnoxious and off topic that would upset the mods regardless of whether you are actually a transphobe. Gaslighting in action. To earn the Transphobe badge, all you have to do is complain about anyone else bringing up the subject of trans-anything on a niche gardening subreddit. Or refuse to boycott Harry Pott…

Agreed and thank you. The Transphobe badge is the easiest one to earn at the moment, and I've earned it multiple times in Star Trek subs, even though I have no problem with the existence of trans people in theory, in sci fi stories, or in my daily life. For instance, I recently earned the badge by saying the Dax character on DS9 isn't "a trans person"... she's an alien with a symbiote, that has lived 7 lives and does…

all of which is completely useless—the judgement upon you has already been passed, and you have been deemed One Of Those Sorts Of People—the tar, feathers, and pitchforks should be headed your direction shortly.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#196

Post by Dwedit » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

deergomoo wrote: post #18

Good read. Interesting that the author’s takeaway is that folks consider Digg v4 to be a catastrophic launch because of the myriad technical issues. I don’t even remember there being technical issues, I just remember logging in one day to find a website I enjoyed replaced with a bunch of crap I wasn’t interested in.

All I remember was seeing some really stale stuff on the front page of Digg, making me look for an alternative.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#197

Post by adamrezich » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:37 PM UTC

geenat wrote: post #160

frou_dh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good old Kevin Rose is an NFT peddler now!

Kevins best ideas were always products that genuinely helped people, rather than self-serving concepts. Digg, Zero, etc. It's just sad he's using his fame for NFT crap now.

I miss Pownce, both for its functionality and color scheme—what a cool era of the Internet that was

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#198

Post by mdasen » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #58

captainmuon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can actually be quite useful, if implemented correctly. Even as a site owner I wouldn't mind, because it lets users upvote my content after reading it easily. But evolving browser standards killed it and most of the time it was implemented annoyingly. Actually it would be nice if this was a browser feature. Click on a link on a site like HN or Reddit, browse to the new page as usual, but you have a little incons…

Site owners just aren't going to be excited about stealing the most important bit of real estate and putting buttons there that navigate away from your site, that the end user presumably chose to navigate to. And other problems, like breaking bookmarking, no SEO benefits from the "link", etc. The selfishness of it is obvious if you think through what would happen if someone posted one of these dig iframed urls to ano…

I'd think that too, but site owners were perfectly happy to go with Google's AMP for a while (maybe still). They put a big "X" to close out of the article and go back to Google in a bar at the top as well as horizontal swiping to get to other versions of the story at other publishers.

I agree that site owners shouldn't like this behavior. Still, we've seen cases where content owners have welcomed things against their interest in the name of engagement or hype.

For example, a lot of video producers started putting content on Facebook (where they received no revenue) because they were getting lots of views on Facebook compared to their own site. This eventually left them without the revenue they needed and they dwindled.

Yes, site owners shouldn't like these kinds of things, but we've seen sites chase a lot of crazy trends. The Oatmeal has a cartoon that kinda sums up some of this: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/reaching_people.

Even today, you'd think brands would want to move to ActivityPub where they could run their own server and actually have control; you'd think influencers would want to move to ActivityPub where they wouldn't be beholden to Facebook looking for money to boost their reach or Musk's arbitrary moods. Instead, so many are sticking around on platforms they know are looking to gain an advantage over them. I'm not even suggesting abandoning those platforms, but cross-posting to ActivityPub would mean building a future you're more in control of.

There's a lot of platform behaviors that aren't good for sites that many sites end up being enthusiastic about.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#199

Post by OGWhales » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #174

slg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be joking, but the specifics insults there are indicative of a certain worldview. OP only used words that would come from a small percentage of the population and insults that wouldn't be relevant on most subreddits. For example, these wouldn't be the insults you would here from anyone who qualifies as centrist or anything further right unless you are legitimately doing something wrong. There are also plenty…

> And if someone calls you a "transphobe" on some niche gardening subreddit, odds are you are doing something obnoxious and off topic that would upset the mods regardless of whether you are actually a transphobe. Gaslighting in action. To earn the Transphobe badge, all you have to do is complain about anyone else bringing up the subject of trans-anything on a niche gardening subreddit. Or refuse to boycott Harry Pott…

I don’t think gaslighting is the right word, it’s speculation.

In my experience on reddit, most of the time people heavily complain about how awful mods are it ends up being that person was actually just an asshole.

I agree that mods can be an issue and many are power hungry weirdos. I’ve been on reddit over a decade and have dealt with them plenty. My solution to dealing with subs run by bad moderators is unsubscribing/filtering them, as the content is typically of poor quality anyway and it’s usually a giant echo chamber. If that solution doesn’t work and you are constantly running into problem mods, it’s more likely that you are the problem or maybe you are seeking out communities where it's very likely to be ran by bad, heavily political moderators.

The comment in question above does seem like the typical comment you see on reddit, where when you look at their post history you realize they totally deserved it. If that’s actually the case for this person, I can’t say, I agree there isn’t enough info. But I can say I’m not surprised people are quick to assume that’s the case, cause it definitely reminds me of those kinds of comments where that is the case.

Re: Digg's v4 launch: an optimism born of necessity (2018)

#200

Post by mananaysiempre » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

jnwatson wrote: post #149

pdntspa wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree with GP, I am part of several subreddits where the moderators clearly enjoy being kings of their precious little fiefdom. Some of these folks are downright fascists, and the only way to fix it is to start a new subreddit or try appeal to reddit staff Maybe the burden of moderation makes them this way, I don't know. But reddit is worse off with them.

I think Musk learned the hard way how hard it is to strike the right balance. Anybody that thinks Reddit is fascist should spend 60 days moderating a popular sub. Your attitude might change. This isn’t to say that there aren’t mods with power trips. Reddit has essentially outsourced their trust and safety department. It isn’t going to be perfect.

> Anybody that thinks Reddit is fascist should spend 60 days moderating a popular sub.

I have little in the way of opinions about Reddit, but this strikes me as the wrong approach on general grounds.

It might be true that anyone who spends time running a subreddit will change their mind about moderation. However, the only point of a subreddit is for people to talk to each other and to read what others are talking about; moderation is nothing but incidental overhead. That doesn’t mean it’s easy or unimportant, but it does mean that the burden is on the moderators to prove themselves reasonable to participants who don’t and shouldn’t have to, by default, understand their work going in.

There can be different approaches to that, and in some of them the participants will come to understand and care about how moderation works—I’m not saying that they shouldn’t. But I am saying that if they don’t see why they should but the moderators wanted them to, generally speaking it’s the moderators who failed.

There is no natural law that says that there’ll always be a way to succeed, though. Perhaps in some communities, in some political environments, etc. there just can’t be a good discussion forum. In such cases, maybe it really are the users who suck. But the fact remains that if users get annoyed about the moderation and leave, then the moderators have built a forum that’s wrong for those users.

(This is of course the standard argument against every instance of “the users just don’t understand how complex the backoffice is” ever. But this instance might look a bit unfamilliar because it doesn’t involve computers.)