Doesn’t mean it won’t do well but its just another flavor of facebook.
Because these services are so all-encompassing, they are bound to have some amount of well-curated content, or at the very least content that holds one's interest. By virtue of that minuscule amount of content being hosted on the massive aggregate site, that predisposes some people to affirm or at least ignore the idea of the overarching site as a whole, along with the SEO mechanisms, influencers, etc. that always get so much flak in certain circles.
In other words, because the site is so massive there will always be a population of consumers in their own niches that never encounter any outrage or issues. There will also be a population exposed to the "rage generating" content. The subset of people aware of the toxicity and how it relates to the workings of the platform itself may or may not overlap with these groups. But in the end, because the site has become so massive that content creators have caused it to encompass literally everything that can be thought of as a topic of interest to general humanity, all of these groups, whether harmful or harmless, contribute to the site's continued growth and prosperity, and more and more people participate as a result.
No, reddit has threads/subjects. Facebook posts organization almost does not exist, it is unusable to read anything there.
The senseless outrage on this site sometimes measures up completely.
If you don't believe me, go browse /r/popular or some such and see how long it takes to see right-wing posts. The right-wing posts are usually heavily downvoted, so you'll see one with 100 upvotes between two posts with 20k upvotes; that's by design.
https://old.reddit.com/r/InsanePeopleQuora/comments/kip08x/w...
I wish that was my experience too.
Generally I'll avoid the subreddits for anything I'm interested in, as they're frequented by "experts" who feel the need to ruin everyone's fun.
It's great for things I'm not interested in, though, as it's a quick way to get genuine information on what is considered a good brand of bike shorts or hair curling products.
Not trying to be a dick here, but this line of reasoning just isn't clicking so asking.
Essentially, whenever I look into communities of things that I'm interested in, I'll see a dedicated core of people insisting that it must be experienced a specific way, and any other way is wrong. Basically wine snobs, but for everything.
However, if I'm an outsider looking to get information for a gift or something I have a passing interest in, this can be quite often useful. If the snobs acknowledge something as legit, then I know that it's likely to be good.
Edit: Karrot_Kream put it perfectly with their use of the phrase "gatekeeping". Special interest groups have this problem, and Reddit fails to solve it.
This got me to thinking though...almost every news outlet flubs covering deeply technical things folks here would be familiar with, and we all have a laugh. But we get our news from them and generally believe it, so do we all suffer from it to some extent?
The underlying presumption of it is every person working at a paper is equally wrong about the topic they write.
However, most newspapers are focused on politics and so those might be better.
I would not expect a good analysis on the Palestinian conflict from Linus Tech Tips nor a good analysis on the latest graphics cards from Foreign Affairs.
I know you were just making an extreme comparison, but I genuinely think they'd do a good job of it if push came to shove. Linus and the people who work for him are beyond professional.
No, but such analysis would be informative when you stop to analyze just how persuasive he manages to sound when he's talking about something he obviously knows nothing about. His tone, cadence, body language.. it would reveal to you how good he is at mimicking the superficial characteristics of being an expert. If he's bad at those things when speaking outside his wheelhouse, that's a good thing! But if he's really good at seeming like an expert when you have good reason to think he isn't one, that's a huge warning sign that he might not actually be so proficient in the things you previously believed him to be good at.
This kind of gatekeeping was pretty common in the old days on niche-interest forums too btw. I don't know what a good solution for this is. You even see this kind of behavior in academia.
Mind giving an example? I'm just curious because to me the high point of reddit is learning way more about interests I already love. For example I don't think I would've gotten nearly as into mechanical keyboards without /r/mechanicalkeyboards around.
I also like that they've kept discussions text oriented, instead of allowing for embedded tweets, images, or videos to clog up comment threads (I like this about HN, as well). They might renege on this in the future, but I like the distinctly 2000s feel to discussions.