481–490 of 497 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't that be almost impossible?. Politics affects our lives every day. Your comment suggests that you believe it doesn't affect yours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
Banning discussion of politics is an endorsement of the politics that are already happening. People think it's apolitical but it's not.
I recently activated my account on there and went to the forum for my country. It was already taken over by moderators. Then I looked at the mod and he took all real estate that is already available on Reddit that is related to said country. So in a way, he was probably the first account on there and became god-king for eternity for the subreddits related to the country. I had no idea who he was, what he stood for, w…
A well moderated forum (like HN) is great. I don't have time for the signal-to-noise ratio of X. IMHO Reddit would be better if it had AI moderators that strictly follow a sub's policies. Users could read the policies upfront before deciding whether to join. new subs could start with some neutral default policy, and users could then propose changes to the policy and democratically vote on those changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would now be a good time to point out that I said that "It's not proof" and "weak evidence"? Because that is what I said.
Your next sentence then immediately took it as proof and evidence, so no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Free speech" means you have freedom from retribution from the government. It doesn't mean your fellow citizens need to stand there and listen to your shit, nor does it mean you are entitled to any sort of platform or megaphone. It means you can scream on the side of the road into the ether and you won't be arrested for it.
> "Free speech" means you have freedom from retribution from the government. No, it doesn't. The concept of "free speech" isn't limited to prior restraint, you're mistaking it for the dominant precedent in judicial interpretations of the the 1st Amendment of the US constitution. > It doesn't mean your fellow citizens need to stand there and listen to your shit, Nobody asked you, or claimed this. > nor does it mean yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Subforums should elect mods democratically.
sadly, a nice idea that is painfully naive with how computers are used in reality. One need only remember how easy it was to take over IRC channels with a few hundred bots to see the endgame of this rationale… it cannot be patched out, it’s inherent to the internet. That which would make a vote valid; can (and will) be gamed.
This kind of makes the Digg team look like a joke. Rebuilding was always going to be hard, but I think this kills any chance of building it up a third time since no one can take it seriously.
Digg v3 was in 2006, this is at least v5 :)
Then v5 was when it wasn't curated at all and just a generic news aggregator.
So this is v6 I guess.
The patterns were there if you knew to look for them. The original Digg excepted, Kevin Rose's attention span is extremely limited. He will give something ~3-4 months of attention before (apparently) getting bored and wanting to move on to something else. Up until that point, he will be an unrelenting hype man of whatever his attention is lasered on at that moment. Then the hype posts start to drift. They show up onc…
Milk Moonbirds Digg Too comfortable with money in the bank to give full attention to a new venture. I'm done falling for the Kevin Rose hype train. Long time fan but this is just pathetic.
https://www.wired.com/2008/12/six-apart-pounc/
https://techcrunch.com/2012/03/14/kevin-roses-oink-shuts-dow...
I liked digg v2 (I guess), when it relaunched as a sort of curator of interesting articles (and videos). For years it was my go-to place when bored and wanted something interesting to read. I guess that in an ocean of upvote-based platforms, an island of hand-picked content was a welcome change -- at least for me. The move (back) to a reddit-like site never made sense to me. Hopefully what comes next has real value t…
One of the things I always disliked about the original Digg was their threading. The slashdot like feed where the oldest comments were at the top and there was only one level of replies tended to encourage the "first" comments and harmed the quality of the discussion. I was glad to see it use a reddit-like comment thread for the new site, but it also meant there wasn't much reason to use it over reddit. I'm a bit sur…
(All based on very old memories.)
The bot problem is serious right now. I've switched to only allowing accounts that have paid at least once to post for my own network. It's a hard barrier (minimum spend is $2 for my site), but it almost completely solves the bot problem. We really need some way to "verify as human" in the next coming years.
If your site creates more than $3 of value then I’ll happily setup 1000 bots a day and pay you the $2 per account every single day
It's cat-and-mouse but he's getting richer and richer while the value to you will be constantly in flux.
Who wants to join me in writing an AGPL "antisocial network", which would be basically a convenient interface over rss-bridge, gnus, and deltachat?
...I'm in.