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

Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 347 posts

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#321

Post by s73ver_ »

unescape wrote: post #318
s73ver_ wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not, because you still want it to be associated with the site. If you just want to comment on something, you already have Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, your own blog, and probably a dozen other outlets. What you're asking for is the added legitimacy of the site itself, without their consent.

Read the top-level comment from hello_there: In an ideal comment system I believe that articles, comments and moderation events should come from three different, decentralized streams (like Atom) that the end user can subscribe to individually and that are joined at the end users client. What he is asking for is the exact opposite of "the added legitimacy of the site itself". He's asking for a user interface to integ…

If that's what you want, then again, you have multiple sources for that. Twitter, Facebook, Mastodon, your own blog, etc.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#322

Post by unescape »

s73ver_ wrote: post #321
unescape wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the top-level comment from hello_there: In an ideal comment system I believe that articles, comments and moderation events should come from three different, decentralized streams (like Atom) that the end user can subscribe to individually and that are joined at the end users client. What he is asking for is the exact opposite of "the added legitimacy of the site itself". He's asking for a user interface to integ…

If that's what you want, then again, you have multiple sources for that. Twitter, Facebook, Mastodon, your own blog, etc.

What's still needed is a set of tools to

1. Aggregate comments from Mastodon, personal blogs, etc.

2. Interact with these comments by upvoting and applying filters, etc (i.e. moderate)

3. Publish your moderation actions and apply the same type of metadata from other moderators (and moderation aggregators).

If Talk has any value, it's to serve as a starting point for Tool 2.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#324

Post by remir »

colordrops wrote: post #199
remir wrote: post #173

Why not use machine learning and a sort of "reputation system" to filter out the noise and trolls? The system could analyse comments, but the users could also, instead of upvote/downvote buttons, have buttons with reactions such as "Interesting", "Insightful", "Not relevant", etc... Some people have informed opinion/interesting things to say and some people just contribute noise to the discussion. The system can lear…

Seems dangerous if the rules are not adjusted right. It could end up amplifying certain narratives and extinguishing others, and causing a divide between sets of people as they move to communities where they don't get blocked. Furthermore an AI would be more opaque than a simple voting system, and could easily be manipulated for unethical purposes. Lastly, this sort of system would heavily bias towards the mainstream…

I get where you're coming from. I guess it depends on how the system is made, but there's a risk, absolutely.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#325

Post by TwelveNights »

unescape wrote: post #217
TwelveNights wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They never said that Talk was aimed at moving that goal further along, however. They're trying to use it instead to allow better curation tools to make comments manageable.

It seems that their goal is to help sites move away from 3rd-party comment management services such as Facebook and Disqus. Based on this discussion, I think federated (not site-owned) comments are the way to go long-term. Maybe Talk can eventually be adapted to help with decentralized comment moderation.

The thing about federated comment feeds is that these news outlets will not be incentivized to embed them directly to their website, as they lose control of the content. This problem will damage the exposure that a federated system would receive.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#326

Post by KajMagnus »

algesten wrote: post #246

> Talk is small — about 300kb — and lightweight This makes me feel old. Is 300kb really considered small these days?

I'm developing an embedded comments system, it's 150 kb on page load. https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments

Disqus seems to be 600kb (I summed the size of the "disqus" scripts on a blog that uses Disqus).

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#327

Post by KajMagnus »

hartator wrote: post #119

Shouldn't they be focusing on the browser? There is literally a good hundred of solid solutions out there for web commenting - hosted, embedded or app libraries -, and Talk doesn't seem innovative at all.

Here's one that innovates a bit, when it comes to browser side features, e.g. making large discussions simpler to navigate: (I'm developing it)

https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments

(example feature: click the arrows to jump to the parent post and refresh your mind, then click "Back" to jump back down & continue reading. But haven't ported the Back button to iframes yet.) (submitted yesterday, got zero attention :-/ )

Maybe for the staff at the newspaper, moderation features are more cool innovations, because that's what they will be using the most?

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#328

Post by KajMagnus »

binthere wrote: post #323

> It’s fast. Talk is small — about 300kb Hopefully that's not the client size

Here's one that's 150 kb Javascript on page load, instead of 300 kb: https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments — and innovates a bit when it comes to features for the readers. (I'm developing it.) Disqus seems to be 600kb (I summed the size of the "disqus" scripts on a blog that uses Disqus).

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#329

Post by KajMagnus »

jessriedel wrote: post #15

Are there any notable new techniques used here, whether social or technical?

I got the impression that there are some improvements with moderation tools and banning / blocking people, that is, things that aren't directly visible to the reader.

Here's an alternative to Talk, with some new features / "techniques"?, directly visible to the reader: https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments

E.g. makes large discussions simpler to read / navigate, by using arrows, which one can click, to jump to the parent post (if it's far away), and then Back to jump back down and continue reading. (I'm developing this.)

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#330

Post by KajMagnus »

EasyTiger_ wrote: post #29

The top of HN for an article which says nothing much at all, really?

Interestingly enough, I submitted something similar yesterday, about another open-source commenting system with different features: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15242630 — it got zero upvotes, although i think it's a bit interesting to read, for those interested in online comments. And the Mozilla post got > 500. Interesting how HN works, ... and the accumulation principle.
Post reply on HN