Live data from Hacker News

What Reddit Got Wrong

eff.org

201–210 of 284 posts

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#201
post #167
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who post on Reddit are very often just completely wrong, and often that wrongness becomes a meme (in the original sense of the word) that propagates through the site for literally years. Isn't that just a microcosm of the internet and society in general?

The internet I came from (in the days of discussion forums) didn't suffer this problem because there were no internet points attached to posts, and posts were ordered oldest to newest. Incorrect information was called out. On Reddit, the "right kind" of incorrect information is upvoted and boosted to the top, and anyone calling out this misinformation is downvoted.

Internet points are fine but the sort by votes order messes up any interesting discussion if people use downvotes as disagree buttons.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#202
Whether they truly got it wrong depends on exactly what their (publicly unstated) goals really are. It's possible that this is driven by incompetence and ego as has been seen elsewhere in social media in the past year, but it's also possible that apps weren't a target and were just a bystander. A LOT of this depends on the question 'who are they wanting to have paying?'

Personally, I think they got focused on one particular thing (AI firms and any other content vacuums) and lost sight of other options for making money. In that context, trying to do volume-based charging to the third party apps makes sense, because in a lot of ways you're just treating them like all the new customers you're targeting.

I think this completely misses the potential for monetizing their users beyond ad impressions, but maybe they did analysis and decided it just couldn't happen - or maybe they just dismissed it because they had different customers in mind.

It still seems to me that they could (now could have?) converted a significant percentage of mobile app users into paying customers - perhaps not at the Premium price point of $50+/year, but likely at a lower price point of $18/year (still way more than they were getting from ads) they'd have taken a ton of free users and turned them into paying customers, and they'd have done it while keeping the lion's share of the money themselves instead of having app devs and app stores thrown into the mix. In addition, once you've got them paying you have plenty of options to try to steer them to higher plans - someone wants to have multiple accounts for family or privacy reasons? That's only available with Premium, or with a Family plan. Want higher API limits? We can sell you that. Spending time moderating a popular subreddit? Thanks, would a free subscription make that easier for you?

But maybe potential investors don't actually care about having paying clients.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#203
post #8

I never understand why Reddit is credited to the "free community based moderation" idea Facebook does this at much larger scale (2B users active in FB Groups), with way more spam, and some FB groups are much larger than most big subreddits Its not about Facebook or Reddit, its about people being so power hungry they do these things for free. When subreddits post about bringing in more mods, thousands apply, maybe 2 g…

> No one has ever proven the current moderation teams are any good.

They evaluated themselves and found that they were actually excellent moderators.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#204
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, because we're talking about a phenomenon that indisputably exists.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#205
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tracks exactly with what I've noticed. r/fragrance for example decided to stay open, but the mods just would quit doing anything. That'll show us! What happened: no spam. A few silly posts. A lot of good posts. A lot of people remarking how much better the sub is without mods. Mods returned, promising to 'consider community feedback' once they realized they lost control of the narrative.

That's only in the short term. Long term, we've seen what happens to unmoderated discussions: spam, (child) porn, violent/illegal images, and more. The worst humanity has to offer. It's like taking your hands off the wheel when driving. A few seconds and you're probably okay. An hour? You're in a ditch!

I'm curious. Do you know of a class of "illegal images" that aren't also "child porn"? Or are you just listing this twice?

To be specific, I'm referring to in non-crazy western countries with something resembling freedom of speech, not PRC "Winnie the Pooh is banned" places.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#206
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.

there are definitely browser extensions that will call the API to check account age and highlight suspicious accounts, that's how "checking" generally happens except in egregious cases.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#207
post #197
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was a clear successor existing with a team that could scale fast, there wouldn't be a Reddit strike but a Reddit exodus. Lemmy and other garbage is not it...

So, dumb question incoming: How hard would it be to make a thing with the same API as Reddit so the apps that are currently about to shut down can instead change base domain and keep going? Including existing OSS servers, assuming there already is some (complete!) open source one somewhere — I can google for the attempts ("plebbit" was submitted here for discussion only last week) but I can't trivially tell if they'r…

Iirc such things already exist.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#208
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The last thing that bugs me is peoples claims the new mods (if chosen by reddit employees) wont be as high quality as the previous ones. No one has ever proven the current moderation teams are any good. There is some competition between subreddits for attention, and a bad mod team can cause a subreddit to lose that competition (including to subreddits on different subjects), so there is some amount of successful co…

Don't forget the epic story of the fall of r/worldpolitics and the rise of r/anime_titties as its replacement.

Except on April 1st, of course.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#209

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.

That would align with the changes Reddit seemed to have made to their algorithm. They changed something last year that affected what posts were promoted to the top of sub.

In the r/movies sub, text posts were frequently getting to the top, which is fine is these were quality posts. Spoiler: they weren't. They'd be dumb questions like "DAE think X movie is underrated" where X movie is highly rated by everyone or a cult classic, or meaningless observations like "Y movie is now 30 years old!!" as if someone just discovered how time works. In the past, most top posts were links to articles, trailers, posters, etc. Discussion naturally happened in those posts. These low effort posts did spur a lot of discussion, but none of it was new or meaningful.

I think the mods are now filtering out these type of posts, because the sub is more or less back to how it used to be.

Re: What Reddit Got Wrong

#210
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next up, getting rid of comment trees.

What's a good alternative when more than a few people are involved in the conversation?

multiple threads discussing different topics, or different aspects of a topic. Instead of "HUB 4090 review" where people are discussing everything about the 4090 in a single giant comment tree, you create a thread asking about the 4090's efficiency and people can discuss that one aspect.

the reason we do the "one big omnithread" for everything nowadays is because we have moved to a fundamentally reactive model, where youtube opinion leaders or news articles say a thing and people react to it, most people are the metaphorical AIs who don't have any independent thoughts until prompted by an external stimulus.

Actually in practice any internally-generated questions tend to be smashed down on reddit. Self-posts end up downvoted heavily. Some of that is that they're often low-quality content asking dumb shit that should have been a comment on some other related post rather than a full thread, so it's the "stupid newbie" downvote. But they also don't have anything to consume, and again, the 90-9-1 model applies. 90% of your users are readers, 10% are commenters. And actually beyond being a reader, they usually are not reading the comments either, they're reading the articles. While in fact the commenters often are the exact opposite, they don't read the article/watch the video because they're there to talk.

But the fact that 90% are not there to talk, and actually they don't even care about the comments at all - that's why Reddit is pivoting. Forums discussion is a smaller niche than content drips.

--

when you do a single megathread and content is moving super fast within a single thread (eg - politics debate-night threads), you have to resign yourself to not seeing every single comment in a thread, because it's literally going faster than you can read. And that's also true of reddit - you're not seeing every comments, you're seeing the top 50 comments. And if you sort by "new" it's a similarly torrential feed, and you stand no real chance of reading everything let alone replying to everything - but the "top" and "hot" and "best" sorts do a good job of surfacing the content that readers want to see, and it feels stable, so it cures that FOMO.

Technically there's no reason that's not a feature you couldn't build into a forum though. Surface me a view of a thread that's only comments above 10 karma, or with more than a certain number of replies, and show me a "top threads" view of a given forum. And reply notifications are not a novel feature.

but anyway, your question gets at another tangential point, which is that reddit and reddit-style models have become so dominant over the last 15 years that people literally don't know the ways to interact efficiently on web-1.0 forums anymore. People know how to work reddit, they know how to work twitter, they know how to work discord... does the average user know how to work phpBB anymore? probably not really!

Post reply on HN