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

'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#81

Post by thomaslord »

jedimastert wrote: post #23
imglorp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When would one choose WP over a static site generator? I just want to publish. I don't want to host something that needs patching and sysadmin and all that.

> I don't want to host something that needs patching and sysadmin and all that. You mean like running your own webserver? Why would I do that instead of just getting a web host that'll take care of all of the sysadmin for you? With a lot of web hosting platforms all you'll need is to just press a button on a web site, then all you'll have to deal with is the wordpress interface

Part of my current job is handling the technical side of managing Wordpress sites (we have people who do the design/content writing/page building, but I get pulled in for "why isn't this plugin working" or "why is the site slow" type stuff).

For my personal sites I've always done something custom or a static site generator. That definitely requires some more in-depth setup on the frontend, but the long-term maintenance is drastically reduced compared to Wordpress. Sure you don't need to know the command line, but unless you log in weekly to check for plugin updates, make sure you properly vet your plugins, and either get lucky or spend a bunch of time on site optimization, your site will probably be slow and, at some point, get hacked.

You can pay for more hands-on hosting that includes managing a lot of that stuff, but all of a sudden the costs get a lot higher. For a personal blog, I don't want to pay $30/month for hosting.

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#82

Post by chipotle_coyote »

jasonv wrote: post #68
gonehome wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Zuckerberg is more right on this issue than Jack and twitter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/17/zuckerb... The hard part is who is deciding what is true and what is not. It’s important to verify authenticity of the message (who the message claims to come from is actually who it’s coming from), but deciding what to disallow based on truthiness is a lot more problematic.

I can't read that, but nothing Facebook/Zuckerberg has done feels aligned with any principled standing that I agree with. From a slightly different direction.. for instance: banning any content that contravenes the WHO's official recommendations for pandemic response definitely feels too narrow, esp given that the WHO might reverse course or admit they weren't optimal. I completely disagree with Trump's defunding of…

That was a link to Zuckerberg's speech at Georgetown in October 2019, which was basically his defense of not fact-checking politicians on the site. Quoting the Zuck:

"We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise conflict with many of our standards. I know many people disagree, but in general, I don't think it's right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy."

Ben Thompson of Stratechery quoted the same bit I just did, and wrote, "I couldn't agree more. The only hangup is the person who was saying it. [...] The very structure of [Facebook] is antithetical to what is necessary for free expression to flourish; I believe that Zuckerberg is well-intentioned, but that doesn’t change the fact he is completely unaccountable."

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#83

Post by chipotle_coyote »

zem wrote: post #69
ketzo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: why do people dislike Medium so much? I see a lot of hate for it.

they ran smack into the common failure mode of building up a large audience and then trying to use that as leverage for user-hostile monetisation tactics.

I was going to say "that's not entirely fair," but I suppose it basically is fair. It's at least worth noting that they still really do seem to be trying to find ways to make it viable for independent writers to get paid for their writing -- their user-hostile monetization tactics are about trying to get you to sign up for that paywall, and that paywall gives a chunk of its revenue to authors who choose to put their stories behind it. The real tragic irony of Medium is that it's quite plausible they've made every poor decision with the best of intentions.

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#84

Post by chipotle_coyote »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #70

Should Twitter release an easy static site generator of sorts and host those user blogs for free so users can post about each others blogs on regular Twitter? Keeps people on Twitter.

Doing that not for free is basically Micro.blog's business model; a hosted account there is actually a hosted Hugo instance.

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#85

Post by aaron695 »

We tried blogs, they failed (or were superseded)

So, wishing for them to work won't help.

https://theconversation.com/ was an attempt at blogs 2.0 and it's failed. (failed as in an educated longform alternative to Twitter, it might make money however)

Medium is doing ok.

I think maybe gatekept shortform media might be possible, it's in part what HN is. I would look at furthering HN to the next level.

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#86

Post by sexy_seedbox »

imglorp wrote: post #17
joelrunyon wrote: post #13

I've been on this train for a long, long time. If you don't own your platform, you don't own your content. Register your domain, install wordpress, start your own blog. We actually created https://startablog.com to drive this point home, teach people how to do it and even have a team that will do it for you for free if you need the help (lots of people still find the WP install process intimidating).

When would one choose WP over a static site generator? I just want to publish. I don't want to host something that needs patching and sysadmin and all that.

Because the theming and plugins ecosystem is unbeatable. For static sites, you could use something like WP2Static and have the best of both worlds.

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#87

Post by chipotle_coyote »

yuyangchee98 wrote: post #5
pgt wrote: post #4

If you are an expert reading this considering writing a blog - whatever you do, please don't start publishing on a paywalled medium like Medium.

What alternatives do you recommend? I'm starting to write, and Medium seems like the best option to me because how else am I going to get readers?

The big problem (well, one big problem, not the only one) with Medium is that it's actually really terrible for discovery.

If you want your posts to be seen, the main thing to do is to try to get them linked in as many places as possible. If you use Twitter, tweet the links. If you use Reddit, post the links in an appropriate Subreddit. (Those can drive a surprising amount of traffic.) If you're in niche communities that have their own forums, Slack channels, Discord servers, Telegram channels, etc., etc., and your article is on-topic, link it there. You need to do this all in a way that isn't spammy or obnoxious, for obvious reasons: you're saying "I think this link will be interesting to the audience here," but if you're really saying "OMG I need the hits click on me click on me click on me," people will pick up on it.

And then... hope. The chances are the post still isn't going to go anywhere in particular, but getting the link seen and shared by others is what will eventually drive an audience to it.

The more articles you write, the more likely you are to get something once in a while which catches on. Writing at least semi-regularly also helps. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but you have to actually have something interesting to say. "Join a New Developer on Their Journey With The Same Technologies The Last 58,213 Developers Who Wrote 'My Developer Journey' Blogs" will probably not cut it.

None of these things are specific to Medium, obviously, and frankly I don't think posting on Medium is a really great choice. If you're looking for a free blog, start it at WordPress.com, and maybe pony up the $15 a year to connect it to a custom domain. (I blogged at Tumblr for years, which can actually be set up to be a terrific blogging platform if you choose the right theme, but I'm not sure about its long-term viability at this point.)

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#88

Post by dfxm12 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #82
jasonv wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't read that, but nothing Facebook/Zuckerberg has done feels aligned with any principled standing that I agree with. From a slightly different direction.. for instance: banning any content that contravenes the WHO's official recommendations for pandemic response definitely feels too narrow, esp given that the WHO might reverse course or admit they weren't optimal. I completely disagree with Trump's defunding of…

That was a link to Zuckerberg's speech at Georgetown in October 2019, which was basically his defense of not fact-checking politicians on the site. Quoting the Zuck: "We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise co…

"We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying..."

This is such a cop out. Many (I'd even venture on most) political ads on Facebook don't represent what politicians say.

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#89

Post by whatshisface »

AgentME wrote: post #62
aazaa wrote: post #31

The article mentions the 15-20 tweet roll as being cumbersome, and it is. But a bigger issue is at work here - censorship. Twitter is being pulled in two opposite directions. It's a platform in which authoritative content is hosted. For example, the president conducts foreign policy through Twitter. And Twitter is also a platform where bots try to influence elections, people post images of dubious taste, and plain ol…

>Twitter won't be able to afford to host anything remotely controversial (i.e., interesting) for fear of upsetting the thought police. What interesting controversial content are they banning specifically? Ethnonationalist propaganda? I'm really annoyed by the common effect where people complaining about censorship on the big platforms always complain about it in vague abstract terms, because that gets a lot more supp…

>I'm really annoyed by the common effect where people complaining about censorship on the big platforms always complain about it in vague abstract terms

Ten people want to say thing 1 on twitter. Ten people want to say thing 2 on Twitter. Ten want to say thing 3, and so on for ten million things. Twenty people don't want to say anything particularly controversial and don't think anyone else should either. If the groups of ten don't address free speech as an abstract ideal, each of the hundred million will be individually silenced by the twenty.

Re: 'Expert Twitter' Only Goes So Far – Bring Back Blogs

#90

Post by lonelappde »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #82
jasonv wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't read that, but nothing Facebook/Zuckerberg has done feels aligned with any principled standing that I agree with. From a slightly different direction.. for instance: banning any content that contravenes the WHO's official recommendations for pandemic response definitely feels too narrow, esp given that the WHO might reverse course or admit they weren't optimal. I completely disagree with Trump's defunding of…

That was a link to Zuckerberg's speech at Georgetown in October 2019, which was basically his defense of not fact-checking politicians on the site. Quoting the Zuck: "We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise co…

Zuck is a liar, as he has repeatedly proven.

1 ads are microtargeted so most people don't see what people are saying.

2 censoring everyone except politicians is bootlicking government.

Post reply on HN