And they were big bandwidth sinks due to the distributed model usenet has, so it was easy for ISPs to yank the carpet and look at the immediate gains.
The massive cross-posting of troll threads in the late 90's is what helped kill it off. The lack of effective moderation controls is the biggest weakness of Usenet.
While this didn't help, I don't think it was a key factor for ISPs. Most ISP NNTP services didn't carry binary groups anyway for bandwidth cost reasons. There were some issues with groups that linked to where to find copyright covered material, but the RIAA and their ilk were going more for the direct sources at the time. The public list/pointer resources were actually useful to them as lists of places to chase down.
Of course this led to people paying for external NNTP services which did carry the binaries groups. These services were obvious targets for the RIAA and other such groups unlike the ISPs.
> they were big bandwidth sinks due to the distributed model usenet has
This was a far more important reason, even without carrying binaries groups Usenet could consume a large amount of bandwidth. As well as the incoming load, and the bandwidth used sending data to clients, back then modem access was common and NNTP lead to people leaving the line open to download a huge pile of stuff (most of which they'd discard without reading anyway) meaning ISPs would have to invest in more modem racks, impose unpopular limits, or be perpetually busy, any of which would lose them custom.
Another significant issue was the cost of building and maintaining the servers required too. To run an NNTP service for a noticeable amount of users with reasonable performance you needed an arrangement with impressive IO performance stats for the time, and the access patterns (constant & random) could be murderous to the drives, sometimes chewing through them as fast as they could be replaced.
Usenet died for the same reason Facebook won: people exploit "free" forums in ways that ruin the experience. It's simply not possible to have an unmoderated discussion environment in an unrestricted internet, which is why we're having this discussion on a moderated site.
What I think led to the decline was at least a combination of:
1) an overrun of SPAM - Usenet was first to be hit by the spam flood, email SPAM came later as Usenet usage died off.
2) the 'newness' factor and the 'new shiny object' factor of the web drew away existing users, and resulted in new users never joining (i.e., pictures, fancy formatting, etc. all made plain text character Usenet posts look "old-fashioned"). And once you have a situation where new users don't join, and some number of existing users continue to depart, you are on a downward slope to disappearance.
Both of the above helped contribute to ISP's dropping NNTP service. Bandwidth costs for #1 (plus bandwidth if they were carrying alt.binaries.*) and a drop in NNTP usage due to #2. They (ISPs) no longer saw offering NNTP as a sales factor for obtaining subscribers, and once NNTP was no longer a "hook" to bring in subscribers, it was only a matter of time before they decided to just drop it entirely.
And of course ISP's dropping NNTP accelerated the issues around #2 above.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-attorney-general-forces-isps-t...
I was a really late adopter to torrents because of my background in usenet, sometime around 2010 all the alt.binaries I used to frequent went dead or were broken with little par2 support.
It was a great time back in the early 2000s, though.
If I'm honest, I don't download as much as I used to, but I do miss the niche communities based on those groups, though. They have since moved to IRC but for the most part its all gone from what I can tell.
Those little niche communities on usenet were what originally got me so excited about the internet. Both participating in ones that interested me and just exploring all sorts of interesting little communities.
For any method of communication, you can transfer content that someone else tries to prevent.
It's fun to game-theory how such limits can be broken.
You can mathematically prove atop Shannon's theorem that if the system can transmit comprehensible text information between two users, it can transmit binaries. Worst-case scenario, the users could use the text information layer to just say 'one, zero, one, one, zero, one' at each other, etc.
(Socially banning them can certainly "work," in the same sense that social banning works in any context: pushes it underground out of the moderators' lines of sight. Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, that can be good enough).
In either case it was pretty trivial to picky bag of existing IDs, if I ever solve that for the general case, you will find out.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
I think the rise of web-based forums is what killed off usenet as a general tool.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2009/04/27/time-magazine-throws-up-it...
>New users, new ideas.
> Mods ban these new ideas because they don't comply with existing culture
> Mods get heavy with their justice
>Core users are mistaken for newbies, and face mod wrath
> Core users migrate to new websites
Guess where HN is on this timeline
Being able to downvote replies without any refutation, to me, seems like a massive mistake; it just teaches people not to say anything interesting, because they won't get a response anyway, even when they're wrong in a subtle or interesting way.
The formatting available to users is maybe close to the right amount, but the implementation is broken (for example, it doesn't end URLs when it sees >, so you end up with broken URLs when you go out of your way to protect them). It could probably also do with proper first-class block quotations, people end up putting them in <pre> blocks or italics, and it's not always clear.
I've been here almost 10 years now, and I don't think so. I think the overall quality has remained about the same.
> Being able to downvote replies without any refutation, to me, seems like a massive mistake
If downvoting is going to be used just to express disagreement, I agree it's too easy to do. (A number of commenters have posted links to comments by pg where he has said that's what downvoting is for, but I still think it's too broad.)
If downvoting is going to be used only for posts that are seen as adding no value to the discussion or the site, that's a much narrower category, and it doesn't really lend itself to "refutation".
> it just teaches people not to say anything interesting
The way around that is to build up enough karma that you don't care if you get downvoted. Of course, then you have to police yourself by not saying unpopular things just to be difficult, but only if you genuinely think they need to be said and are adding something to the discussion and the site. But people who have built up enough karma are going to have learned to do that anyway.
It seems like you're impugning their motives here.
Do you honestly think that most people whose thoughtful comments are downvoted are engaging in bad faith, “saying unpopular things just to be difficult”?
No. Remember that I was talking about a particular subset of users: the ones who have enough karma that they don't care if they get downvoted. In order to get that much karma, such a user will have already made a lot of thoughtful comments that were made in good faith. I was just observing that, once a user has enough karma not to care if they get downvoted, the feedback mechanism that regulated their behavior up to that point--karma--no longer has much impact. When put in that kind of position, it has been known to happen that a person might change their behavior. But I would hope and expect that a change for the worse under those circumstances would be rare.
I personally think that playing in to the echo chamber is a subtler form of abuse; making the people in the community progressively more unhealthy by carefully avoiding anything that looks or feels challenging.
I don't think a healthy community is one which encourages people to fat eachother up on sweet nothings and uncontroversial shower thoughts.
It seems to me that the most popular replies are often the ones which present an obvious, widely-held opinion as though it's controversial outside the group; which enables holders of the majority opinion to think of themselves as underdogs and free thinkers.
I think a lot of harm is done by rewarding people for defending the majority opinion as though it's controversial.
It seems like you think that upvotes are not being used to identify posts that add value, but simply as a signal of agreement with groupthink. Am I reading that right?
Also, do you think that downvotes are similarly misused? (I.e., to slap down controversial but value-add posts?)
My own experience is that the posts of mine that have gotten lots of upvotes have been thoughtful ones, not simple "party line" ones, and the posts of mine that have gotten downvotes have been thoughtful ones as well--just thoughtful ones that the majority disagreed with but didn't have any good refutations of. But my experience might not be typical. It is certainly more plausible on its face that both upvotes and downvotes would be misused, than that downvotes would be misused but upvotes would not.
Put simply, no.
There is nothing wrong with upvoting something you agree with, that makes a lot of sense. What I take issue with is downvoting something sincere because you disagree with it, but without supporting an alternative position. If the only signal is "this comment deserves to be gray because people disagree with it in their own personal ways", then nothing is learned.
Ok, fine, if you insist on my quoting your exact words, here is how you described what you call "the behavior required to get a karma cushion":
"I personally think that playing in to the echo chamber is a subtler form of abuse; making the people in the community progressively more unhealthy by carefully avoiding anything that looks or feels challenging.
I don't think a healthy community is one which encourages people to fat eachother up on sweet nothings and uncontroversial shower thoughts."
This is what you think upvotes mean, since getting a lot of upvotes is how you get a lot of karma. I don't see the point of quibbling over whether "groupthink" is a valid description of this; the point is that none of the behaviors you describe are using upvotes to identify posts that add value.
> If you would like to understand what I've said better, your first step should be to read it for the first time.
Please dispense with the snark. As far as I can tell, you are the one who is failing to read what you wrote, not me. Or at least you are failing to draw obvious inferences from what you wrote, like the fact that getting a lot of karma requires getting a lot of upvotes, so by describing the behaviors you think get you a lot of karma, you are describing behaviors that are rewarded by upvotes.
> There is nothing wrong with upvoting something you agree with, that makes a lot of sense.
It does? How does this square with the extremely negative portrayal you gave of the behavior required to get a karma cushion, which I quoted above?
> What I take issue with is downvoting something sincere because you disagree with it, but without supporting an alternative position.
I agree with this, but I don't see how it relates to "the behavior required to get a karma cushion". To get a lot of karma, it's not enough to just avoid downvotes.
Not all upvotes, but specifically writing things for the sake of avoiding downvotes or getting upvotes. If you write things mainly because you predict people will agree with you (and thus, at least not downvote), then I feel that's not going to make for particularly good discourse. I'm still mainly talking about downvotes here, I don't think the problems should be solved by changing the behaviour of upvotes.
> none of the behaviors you describe are using upvotes to identify posts that add value
Yes, because I'm concerned about the bad outcomes of what can be described as an economy based on avoiding unexplained downvotes.
> It does? How does this square with the extremely negative portrayal you gave of the behavior required to get a karma cushion, which I quoted above?
It squares with it just fine, but you have again misunderstood the point I am making, that other people seem to have understood just fine.
Consider making an effort to interpret what I've said in the ways that make sense, rather than searching for ways to interpret it that make it sound inconsistent.
P.S. you are yourself and not anyone else, so don't try to say what other people think, as though you know it for a fact.
Now that I've cleared up my earlier misstatement (see my other post about 7 or 8 minutes before this one), let me go back and take another look at the underlying point here, which is: how should upvotes and downvotes be used?
We agree that downvotes should not be used just to express disagreement. But to me, that seems to imply that upvotes should not be used just to express agreement (whereas you said you think it's fine for upvotes to be used just to express agreement). Even if people aren't specifically trying to write things for the sake of avoiding downvotes or getting upvotes, if upvotes are used just to express agreement, I think that creates the same kind of problem that using downvotes just to express disagreement does. People respond to incentives even if that response is unconscious.
To me, both upvotes and downvotes should be used in response to whether or not a post adds value to the discussion; a post can do that even if you don't agree with it, and it can fail to do that even if you agree with it. I think a downvote should mean "this post adds no value to the discussion and makes it harder to have a value-added discussion by adding noise". And an upvote should mean "this post adds above average value to the discussion".
In short, while I agree that usage of downvotes needs to be fixed, I don't think it stops with downvotes; I think usage of upvotes needs to be fixed too (if we assume that you are correct and that upvotes are mainly being used just to express agreement).
We do not agree on that, I did not say that. I think that downvotes are a perfectly good way to express disagreement. My one real caveat is that downvoting should only be an option when you have provided or upvoted a reply to the comment you are downvoting. That is, it is reasonable to downvote something you disagree with, but only if you disagree for a reason that has been expressed.
You may have your own ideas about upvotes, I think they're more or less okay. There are obvious downsides to upvote systems, but they serve a legitimate purpose, and there's no really straightforward alternative.
I agree that this is a bad thing, and I see that I did not properly describe the strategy I was advising. I did not mean "write enough things specifically tailored to whatever is going to get upvotes and avoid downvotes, so that you have a lot of karma". I meant "write enough things that add genuine value to the site, and eventually you will have enough karma that you don't care about getting downvoted". But I wasn't clear about that, which is my bad.
> you have again misunderstood the point I am making
Which point? Your point that downvotes should not be used just to express disagreement? I understood that point just fine from the start, and what's more, I agreed with it.
What I was having trouble understanding was your description of the kinds of posts that get upvotes; I now realize that's because I misdescribed the strategy I was advising, so we were talking at cross purposes. See above.
> that other people seem to have understood just fine.
Nobody else is posting at all in this subthread (the one starting with my original response to your "HN is kinda dying as a community", it's just you and me. So I don't know what "other people" you are talking about.
> Consider making an effort to interpret what I've said in the ways that make sense, rather than searching for ways to interpret it that make it sound inconsistent.
> P.S. you are yourself and not anyone else, so don't try to say what other people think, as though you know it for a fact.
Consider that maybe the actual issue had nothing to do with any of these things. See above.
That was never the intention behind downvoting privileges if I remember right. Down voting exists to bury flippant, inappropriate or insulting comments.
We really cramp quality discourse when we automatically hit down just because we disagree.
In online communities where so many are anonymous or psuedo-anonymous, it becomes easier and more mentally healthy to downvote an opposing position than to reply with a well reasoned response only to find out your dealing with a bot or someone who insists the sky is green.
I'm not sure how we fix this, though the signal to noise ratio is higher here than many other sites, so I keep coming back.
PG said it was OK once, because upvoting for agreement is also OK, and now it's permanently baked into the culture, despite the obviously incorrect assumption that merely because the actions are symmetrical, their effects are also symmetrical.
It's also funny that people have been saying HN has been going downhill or "turning into Reddit" since the beginning. It's common enough that it is (or used to be) specifically barred in the guidelines.
I think there's a tendency for many people to consider everyone who came to a culture before them to be authentic, and everyone who came after them to be the ones destroying it. The Eternal September effect is real, but it also panders to nostalgia and a sense of entitlement that says things were better when we and our culture were more relevant.
I personally try not to downvote a post I disagree with, if I think it's a valid, reasonable contribution to the discussion.
The system I've proposed is: you can downvote a post if you've upvoted a reply to it, or if you have replied.
If somebody is breaking the rules in clear bad faith, that's what flagging is for.
As someone who’s been on HN for about 9 years, it’s funny to read this. I don’t see how it’s gotten any worse during my time here.
I think HN’s community is fantastic but you either get it or you don’t. I really enjoy the signal to noise ratio and I’m happy that silly comments and jokes are downvoted or moderated.
I read HN with showdead on and personally I think the moderation is spot-on.
I know that some very bright and lovely people have been totally turned off of the place by this, and this behaviour of the system doesn't really help anything.
> I read HN with showdead on and personally I think the moderation is spot-on.
I too use showdead, I think the moderation is generally good (though I think at times I've been handled somewhat unfairly). The times when there's a dead post that I don't think should be dead, it's usually from a person who has worn out his welcome with other comments. This is why I say moderation isn't the main problem, contrary to the parent reply.
I've notice more and more people say this and it's a sentiment I feel myself too. Personally I don't come on HN half as much as I used to because I just don't fancy putting myself out there when, at times, it can be a flip of the coin whether your gain or lose "points" over it.
I know it's just numbers and it shouldn't bother me; but it does. Judging by the comments others have posted, I'm not unique in that regard either.
In any case, HN will keep rolling on albeit the signal to noise ratio will gradually worsen over time as people get more apathetic about spending their time writing a high value post.
I just accept that Hacker News culture can be vitriolic and petty and that anything I say that's even mildly controversial to someone might be downvoted, and I'll probably never know why, beyond the obvious fact that at least one person disagreed for some reason. It's much easier to participate here once you stop caring about it, though.
My account's even been rate-limited now, and rather than letting that serve its intended purpose of driving me away from the site altogether, it just helps me focus on writing better comments which sometimes get downvoted even more than they otherwise might.
Like the movie says, it's Chinatown. This aspect of Hacker News culture is never going to change.
It really annoys me when I see this happen cross subject/thread. Someone's opinion about zoning has no impact on the correctness of their opinion about low level disk IO.
The tit-for-tat exchange of conflicting earnest opinions has degraded many other discussion systems. My wife used to comment a lot on a newspaper that used Facebook comments. Some articles would have hundreds of comments, with 3/4 of them coming from a small core of people rehashing fundamental differences of opinion.
Without downvoting, many people can't ignore bad comments because "someone is wrong on the internet." Leaving bad posts untouched looks like an implicit signal of community approval. But countering predictable comments with predictable responses makes the whole discussion worse.
My favorite comment chains here are ones where I upvote the original, then the counterpoint, then the refutation to the counterpoint; everyone in the chain is making good, fresh arguments or observations.
My least favorite comment chains are ones where someone opines aggressively, which spawns a sarcastic reply, which leads to a heated response... In those cases I'm happy that I can downvote everyone involved without having to add any more text.