The other day I unsubscribed from a popular Javascript mailing list, after the writer switched from writing about Javascript to writing about how white people and black people should interact.

Or rather I didn't unsubscribe right away: I emailed the writer politely and mentioned how I prefer posts to be about the thing that unites us: Javascript.

Their response: "my platform, my voice", "all tech is political", "this mailing list isn't for you", and later on Twitter: people who unsubscribed are racist and should "eat shit".

I don't believe I'm racist. It's just that I signed up for Javascript tips and the writer switched to politics (in this case, the politics of a country and culture I don't live in).

I'm no more interested in their political views than they are in mine. On the internet, nobody needs to know I'm a dog.

These people have become paralyzed and unable to function normally. They allow world events to bleed into every conversation, and feel obligated to support their side and ostracizing anyone that disagrees - further isolating them in their bubble.

I think that social media has increased society's emotional surface area to world events. We no longer isolate 30-60 minutes per day to watch balanced reports on the 6 o'clock news - now it's all the time, hyperbolic, and often deceptive.

Our emotions are being weaponized - and November is going to be a real wake-up call where we will see the magnitude of disruptive power that these polarized social media messages can wield.

Whereas the third option, "I'm just here for Javascript tips", wasn't even under consideration.

So unless you engage with and echo their politics, you fall into the enemy camp by default.

This aspect of HN is specifically WHY I feel welcome here and WHY the content + conversation is consistently of higher quality relative to other forums...It's actually one of the few places left online where this feature remains.

What's frightening is that groups like politicians, unions, and extreme right-wing groups could very easily use this technique to quickly and pretty effectively promote or quell discussion.

I just recently saw an example of where this might have happened. Very suddenly a comment in a discussion I was following - what initially was a popular up-voted opinion (i.e discussing police brutality) - got down-voted into oblivion (from +5 to -25) in less than 5 minutes. The comment was deleted soon after - probably to protect their score.

This kind of quick/easy manipulation by bots can't be easy to detect/deal with yet I fear it may become mainstream.

Unfortunately for reddit, the site owes its existence to the users who built communities there, and when heavy-handed changes are introduced in classic reddit fashion (invariably user-hostile changes with little to no advance warning nor recourse), the users rightfully feel their senses of ownership being offended.

LinkedIn (2002): You know who has money? People with jobs. Or people looking to give people jobs.

MySpace (2003): Webpages for people who don't webpage or understand contrast. Also my favorite song auto-playing ON THE INTERNET.

The Facebook (2004): Realization that most people suck at graphic design. You'll be shocked to learn what your friends and family believe! Ooh, there's a lot of money in gaming -> targeted advertising -> web tracking.

Reddit (2005): Remember why people used BBSs? Reddit does! Condé Nast doesn't. YCombinator does! Wait, volunteer admins have their own thoughts?

Twitter (2006): Here's a single speech / thought bubble above my head + how I feel about others' bubbles.

Tumblr (2007): I hate apps, but love pictures. Yahoo: We're still cool!

WhatsApp (2009): Remember when you could do everything from the Yahoo! homepage? WhatsApp does! Facebook: Hungry... CHOMP.

Instagram (2010): Pictures are more important than words. Photos for people who don't Lightroom. I'm going to be a photographer / model someday. Facebook: ... don't mention us here. No wait, do. No wait, don't.

Snapchat (2011): The worst thing about social media is people being able to read my old posts. Ooh, there's money in gamifying Facebook to boost engagement metrics.

Google+ (2011): SOMEONE SAID I CAN HAVE MY OWN SOCIAL MEDIA ON THE INTERNET. Internet: Okay, boomer.

Telegram (2013): Security for people who don't attend PGP signing parties.

Mastodon / Fediverse (2016): Give me freedom or give me de... hold on, let me update my settings, something br--. Internet: Okay, rms.

TikTok (2016): Memes for people who don't Photoshop.

China: {Cambrian explosion}. As long as the name is two, repeated consonants. And the logo is a racoon.

Reddit does not want to establish a thoughtful community. Much like Facebook, Buzzfeed, etc. it relies on virtue/outrage to sell ads.

Surely the popularity of content could be purely determined by the actual amount of clicks a given article/topic is given in a certain amount of time?

Also, it has a major problem: if users know that popularity is based on clicks, then they can't click on anything they might disagree with (to simply learn more about it) without amplifying the signal as well. The incentives of user behavior are changed in to a self-censorship of what the user allows themselves to read, likely enforcing bubbles even more.

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy

Littr seems to be federated too:

https://littr.me/

That's about it for federated Reddit alternatives, at least that I can find. And I don't think the federated aspect has caught on yet for either.

Why not just stay with Reddit?

First, you need access to a news server. These folks offer a free public one: https://www.aioe.org/ There are also other paid news servers but I don't want to advertise for them.

You also need an NNTP (Usenet) client. I use "slrn" which is a command line app. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Usenet_newsreaders for some others.

Once you find one, you'll need to point it to the news server of your choice (nntp.aioe.org in this example.)

Good luck discovering Usenet! Most groups are not too active.

Also it's not federated, but I like hubski.com