51–60 of 85 posts
Trendiest post is from the developer saying "Mastodon is dead", four weeks ago, 12 replies. Sure bud.
I would love for everyone designing a new social app to start by deciding how to handle the issues every social app will have. Abuse, hate speech, brigading, etc. We've known about these for decades. They can't be ignored. I'm not dictating how they should be handled (variety is great!) but decisions should be made and declared up front before the first spec or line of code. Otherwise the app is DOA IMHO.
Two clicks into this and I say someone posting "Killing n** (free speech)" from a poster named "N*** killer". I am, in fact, pro free speech. But this is a bad look. I'm not even saying this is a problem with subreply. It is some other kind of problem. A problem with a subset of people who like free speech or something? I don't get it.
We see much worse than that all the time. We go to movies that portray horror, torture, murder, depravity, slavery, etc. There are books that contain all those. There are tattoos on people that depict scenes of death and satanism. We put these in their proper place and tolerate them, many people even enjoy them. There are some efforts to keep them out of the public eye and away from children, but it's quite easy to s…
The point of choosing abusive usernames and posting abusive things is to hurt people who don’t want to see that stuff. The two cannot coexist in the same space. There’s no reason to legitimise this kind of thing while they are looking for ways to hurt people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like they claim subreply is the thing that might have killed mastodon. The full post is: Mastodon is dead. Most people have migrated to Bluesky or Threads.
Thank you for the context. It’s important and often overlooked.
It's test instance https://brutalinks.tech is not open for new accounts but if anyone would be interested to run it for themselves I can help with setting it up. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am, in fact, pro free speech. You can be pro free speech and still not condone hate speech, or libel, or doxxing, or a myriad of other problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything in literally any context. Not, not even in the “land of the free”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... Additionally, XKCD reminds: https://…
> It’s a common pattern to see those same individuals clamour for free speech in one post and then in another call for banning books or try to silence someone else. But that's you, too: > Free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything in literally any context. It is of course different because they want to be free to say the bad thing and prevent others from saying the good thing, instead of the other way ro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am, in fact, pro free speech. You can be pro free speech and still not condone hate speech, or libel, or doxxing, or a myriad of other problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything in literally any context. Not, not even in the “land of the free”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... Additionally, XKCD reminds: https://…
> want to be able to say whatever they want with no repercussions Rather, they want to be able to say anything to annoy people as much as possible, for the kicks. Verily, it's important to be able to say annoying things: try speaking about atheism or a different religion in a devout crowd (capitalism among the "left", climate change among the "right", etc). But the intention is important. The intention of trolls is t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s a common pattern to see those same individuals clamour for free speech in one post and then in another call for banning books or try to silence someone else. But that's you, too: > Free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything in literally any context. It is of course different because they want to be free to say the bad thing and prevent others from saying the good thing, instead of the other way ro…
I think you’ll benefit from reading the Wikipedia links I posted. Your comment doesn’t make sense when you understand what free speech really means, and that curtains restrictions are a necessary, well-defined, and important part of it.
But anyway, you admit that your idea of free speech has restrictions, and their idea of free speech also has restrictions, but the difference is that yours are the necessary ones, by your values. Their restrictions are the necessary ones by their values, but their values are bad and wrong. I'm only being slightly po-faced here, I think this description of the situation is probably literally true, barring mistakes and room for improvement in the good value system and the outside possibility of adherents of the bad value system being occasionally onto something insightful.
Cool! I'd say the current UI would greatly benefit from some UX enhancements. At first glance, the page just looks like a wall of text. Very little contrast/hierarchy difference between author names and post titles etc so it's difficult to distinguish between what the content is. Spacing between content would help too.
But beyond content, what sets a network apart is its style. Hacker News works because it rewards precision, logic, and staying on-topic. If Subreply wants to compete, it needs more than just "text-only"—it needs a clear ethos. Will it enforce an etiquette? Foster a specific tone? Otherwise, why would communities migrate?
Edited with help from deepseek.