News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Let's talk content. AMA by dragontamer on Thursday July 16, 2015 @06:44PM (#9900332)
Then go back to Usenet. Its still open.

EDIT: Downvotes. Yall feeling a bit salty? Look, unmoderated "free" discussions exist on the internet in many places. I'm an internet "veteran", I've seen over the years the rise and fall of moderated and unmoderated social networks starting back at Usenet.

Between there and now, there have been an "Exodus" from GameFAQs (LUEsers), Digg, Something Awful, Slashdot and more as each of these communities grew. The "free speech" guys always find another place to take their discussions, and the previous communities usually begin to shrink to some degree.

Reddit is simply going through the _same_ stages. The free speech argument comes up, toxic is spewed forth to test exactly how far the mods / owners are willing to let things go... some back and forth happens and eventually, the "free speech" guys are going to form a new community elsewhere and Reddit's role on the internet will solidify.

Its how it happens. Its how it _always_ happens.

Re:Let's talk content. AMA by kelseydh on Thursday July 16, 2015 @08:17PM (#9900685)
If these communities then see a decline, then maybe that's a sign that Reddit was smart to pursue its free speech policy.

As much as people get outraged by the content, there is no doubting that Reddit has done well for itself due to its radically permissive policies up until now.

Re:Let's talk content. AMA by dragontamer on Thursday July 16, 2015 @10:22PM (#9901016)
All communities pursue free speech policies until some toxic truly is spewed forth that no one likes.

/r/ShitRedditSays has really called into question exactly what "free speech" means. Its like "downvote brigades" are anything new these days. Does anybody remember "message board invasions"???

Its fine to say whatever you like, except you have no right to assemble a downvote brigade. Which is speech. You have complete free speech, except you aren't allowed to make /r/picsofdeadkids, /r/HurtingAnimals, or /r/rapingwomen. Even then, the Reddit owners are looking for a way to cut back on the downvote brigades, which really is the "invasion" problem that has always been eternal on these forums.

There is _always_ a limit to free speech. And when a community figures out exactly what that limit is, then the "free speech" nutters leave. I dunno, maybe they'll leave for 8chan or some "more free" place. Whether or not that causes death for the site... its a question.

The Gamefaqs LUEsers were neutered because of message board invasions, as well as the "shock sites" of Goatse and Tubgirl. Reddit is "free-er" and seems to be accepting of internet shock humor like Goatse and Tubgirl (As well as grossly / weirdly pornographic material like /r/clopclop). But there will be a day when the Reddit admins draw a line and say "No, you aren't allowed to talk about that here".

Re:Let's talk content. AMA by tptacek on Thursday July 16, 2015 @09:32PM (#9900890)
Has it? In the past 6 months it's been newsworthy primarily due to the worst parts of its community. That may impress a subset of message board nerds, but it probably doesn't do much for revenue.
Re:Let's talk content. AMA by kelseydh on Sunday July 19, 2015 @07:57AM (#9910908)
Don't confuse bad news with bad traffic or bad metrics. I'm willing to be Reddit has seen far more traffic benefits from their "scandals" than they may have ever lost due to "boycotts" of them allowing sometning on the site. I'm also willing to bet the so-called "pressure" from advertisers to appear more mainstream is far less of a financial threat for Reddit than people are making it out to be.

This is particularly true when you consider that NSFW sub-reddits almost never make it to the front page, where the presence of offensive content could threaten traffic.

Re:Let's talk content. AMA by SCAQTony on Thursday July 16, 2015 @10:28PM (#9901028)
That's actually a really good idea; Reddit is summarily gentrifying. They are "thirty" now, want to make some money etc. etc.. Users should love it or leave it perhaps for the original "social network,"Usenet.
Re:Let's talk content. AMA by Natsu on Thursday July 16, 2015 @10:53PM (#9901081)
I've been wondering if it would be possible to make a modern version of Usenet. Rather than everything copied to every news server, it could be peer to peer and you just sub to what you want. Someone picks a name and they 'own' that. Maybe even make it tie back into the web, so that there are browser plug-ins so that you can have boards regarding an individual website (not to mention those not affiliated with any site).

But that's all just idle thinking with no code to back it up.

Re:Let's talk content. AMA by vidarh on Friday July 17, 2015 @01:48AM (#9901433)
> it could be peer to peer and you just sub to what you want. Someone picks a name and they 'own' that.

So like Usenet, then.

Few news servers carries every Usenet group. No news server carries every newsgroup, because many of them are private, on private NNTP servers. It's decentralised: Anyone can run a NNTP server, and each NNTP server can take feeds of whatever subset they want, and add whatever additional groups they want for local use, or for distribution.

It has ownership through moderation, though there are certainly weaknesses there in the level of reliance on trust.

And the peering could do with some level of automation.

Re:Let's talk content. AMA by saint_fiasco on Thursday July 16, 2015 @11:39PM (#9901178)
There is an open source distribution of reddit. Maybe that could be adapted to your new specifications?
Re:Let's talk content. AMA by Qwertious on Friday July 17, 2015 @03:47AM (#9901661)
>Someone picks a name and they 'own' that.

IIRC, there was an interesting study of decentralising git, that suggested an application of bitcoin's system for deciding who "owned" a name.

Re:Let's talk content. AMA by GFK_of_xmaspast on Friday July 17, 2015 @09:43PM (#9906272)
Usenet died for a reason. (that reason: spam)
Re:Let's talk content. AMA by vacri on Friday July 17, 2015 @12:59AM (#9901326)
This sort-of exists with mailing lists.