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

Digg is gone again

digg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 497 posts

Re: Digg is gone again

#381

Post by pixl97 »

b112 wrote: post #139
october8140 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future is human curated content. Provide the same experience people get today but without the noise. Give them just the good stuff and don't let just anyone make a post. A book has an author, a movie has a director, maybe websites can have webmasters again who filter through the garbage for you.

Yes, precisely. This means that only sites which verify identity will have any value in the future. And by verified, that means against government ID and verified as real. No amount of sign up fee works as an alternative. Note that a site can verify identity, prevent sock puppets, ban bad actors and prevent re-registration, all while keeping that ID private. You still get a handle and publicly facing nick if you want…

>No amount of sign up fee works as an alternative.

Simply put money is worth too much, at some point someone will want access to this human audience and offer too much to be resisted.

>It should be noted that falsifying ID is a crime

Lol, no one gives a shit on the internet. People will use stolen ID'S to get accounts. If the network is lucrative enough, governments will provide fake IDs to spread propaganda.

Re: Digg is gone again

#382

Post by malfist »

nichos wrote: post #305
koolala wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the problem was spam content it was hate content. Hate can be organic

Who decides what "hate" is though? Does it switch with every administration? Free speech, including "hate speech" should be allowed, as long as it doesn't violate the law (calls to violence, etc)

It's really not that hard to identify hate. We don't have to engage in epistemology

Re: Digg is gone again

#383

Post by rambambram »

Gud wrote: post #196
rambambram wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. I like how clicking a tag also makes the word 'tag' light up.

Thanks for the kind words! I got encouraged by another HN poster a few days ago, let me know if you have any suggestions. I’m always open to criticism.

Everything clicks nice, so to speak. A nice UI you have there.

I would suggest you explain what it's about in one sentence, just like you explain in your HN profile. The About-page says not so much. You can add some explanation there, or even just one sentence at the top of the homepage (or other pages).

Re: Digg is gone again

#384

Post by figassis »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #228
figassis wrote: post #226

The problem seems to be identify, a real problem, and looks like it will only get worse. Would creating a zero knowledge digital identity service (maybe centralized, maybe decentralized idk), where you prove you're human via your government id, passport, driver license, whatever, and the service can then attest you're a real person? So if I'm Digg, I would ask for some form of OAuth, the system would simply verify th…

But they can just plug an AI into a verified account.

I am less concerned here. If you plug in AI into your identity, I guess your identity is revoked. I see the problem though, that once a service notices you're an AI, there is no way to block you because we don't really know who you are, only that you're human.

So we need a mechanism that makes this identity verifiable, maybe you get a unique identifier from the identity service, so you can block the account. There is no mechanism to report you to say, the identity service (this is a bot), so you manage your own block list.

The risk here is fingerprinting, your id can be cross referenced across apps. Maybe here is where you implement a zk proof that you're who you say you are.

Re: Digg is gone again

#385

Post by 9rx »

mrweasel wrote: post #242
Razengan wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, is there more on this? Also, honestly, with AI/LLMs now, do we even need human moderators anywhere anymore

You need both. LLMs can, I think, do the bulk of removing posts that break community guidelines, but you need moderators to define and adjust the guidelines. Most would also like to have a human to escalate a dispute to. Google is famous for having almost solely automated support, at it absolutely sucks at doing almost anything. AI only moderation would go the same way.

> but you need moderators to define and adjust the guidelines

The comments above you are suggesting that global guidelines are unnecessary. Instead, they suggest you don't need moderation at all when LLMs now give us the technology to filter out the stuff individual users don't want to see based own their own personal policies. I am sure you can come up with reasons to dispute that, but "you need moderators to do the thing you say is no longer necessary" doesn't add to the discussion.

Re: Digg is gone again

#386

Post by TheCleric »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #355
taikahessu wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> users could then propose changes to the policy and democratically vote on those changes. Which, in fact, would open up the same rat race with determining which accounts are real and so forth. Not disagreeing with you, just circling around this same problem. Feels like the world still isn't ready yet.

If the policies are public, there's a lot more transparency. eg my city of millions of people has a subreddit. The head mod bans people for criticizing a certain dog breed. This "policy" is pretty opaque, but if the AI enforced subreddit rules say "thou shalt not mention the dog's breed when commenting on articles about someone being mauled to death", more people would be familiar with the rule (and perhaps there wou…

That’s because certain dog breeds aren’t more likely to maul and saying otherwise is ignorant fear mongering.

Re: Digg is gone again

#387

Post by ssl-3 »

gzread wrote: post #276
mschuster91 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to ditch and replace all your devices and acquire a new phone number. I'm serious. Virtually all large websites these days employ a lot of fingerprinting and persistence technologies. And yes, ditch them. Even well over a decade ago, Wikipedia of all places already employed IP address matching to link sockpuppet accounts. You must be extremely careful of never using any device that was associated with your o…

How contagious is it? Can I get other people banned from Reddit by logging into my instantly banned account on their wifi network?

Not that contagious, I'm afraid.

My boss uses Reddit some. I'm banned. At the shop, we use the same IP address (and we do not use ipv6 there).

I tried to log in with a ~10-year-old account that I'd never commented with. A perfect Beetlejuicing moment had arrived and I just wanted to play the game with a short, snarky comment.

It logged in fine, and then: Insta-ban, just like that. (Maybe I should have used a new browser on a new network that I've never used before, but whatever -- nothing of value was lost here.)

Meanwhile, the boss man's access continued unimpeded; this suggests that it is a rather targeted contagion.

And it seems to follow the systems, not the networks.

(If anyone wants banned, just let me know. I seem to have a well-poisoned system to play with.)

Re: Digg is gone again

#388

Post by NetMageSCW »

armchairhacker wrote: post #17
iamdamian wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> This is not a reflection of their talent, their effort, or their belief in what we were building. It's a reflection of the brutal reality of finding product-market fit in an environment that has fundamentally changed. > Ironic, they use AI in their shutdown post that blames AI. This… seems like regular prose to me. What makes you say so confidently it was written by AI?

There are more tells. Rule of three, short cliche sentences. > We know how frustrating this is, and we hope you'll give us another look once we have something to show, we’ll save your usernames! I think it's partly human. But ex: > Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall. isn't a natural sentence.

So no evidence at all, and just your need to point out possible LLM where ever you imagine it. You could be an LLM agent.

Re: Digg is gone again

#389

Post by NetMageSCW »

PaulHoule wrote: post #244
armchairhacker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more tells. Rule of three, short cliche sentences. > We know how frustrating this is, and we hope you'll give us another look once we have something to show, we’ll save your usernames! I think it's partly human. But ex: > Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall. isn't a natural sentence.

I think anything with the “it’s not X it’s Y” is suspect these days. I cringe when I catch myself doing it.

That sounds like a you problem unconnected with reality.

Re: Digg is gone again

#390

Post by NetMageSCW »

grey-area wrote: post #66
troosevelt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that not a natural sentence? I think people are reading into stuff. That's just good writing. Could it be generated? Sure. But there aren't the obvious tells you act like there are.

Here's the context: "We underestimated the gravitational pull of existing platforms. Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall." It's a mixed metaphor which doesn't make any sense. There are really very few ways in which this can be considered good writing - I guess the grammar is ok even if it is nonsense. So let's break it down - underestimated the gravitational effects - ok, this is nice, like where it's…

That’s the entire point - network effects are commonly discussed as being a moat (people can’t cross without difficulty) but are actually a wall - people can’t cross and can’t view the other side. Seems simple and straightforward to me.
Post reply on HN