Topic: what are you replacing reddit with when they kill the api?
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #111,327
I'm going to lemmy.
i made a profile on feddit.nl and they aggregate links from lemmy and mastodon.
wbu mc?
i made a profile on feddit.nl and they aggregate links from lemmy and mastodon.
wbu mc?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 59 seconds later[^] [v] #1,237,099
most of their users joined since the announcement.Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,237,102
I couldn't give two shits if they kill off the API. It's the least of that site's problems and it's a sad reflection of the userbase that this out of all issues is what's causing everyone to have a meltdown. If killing the API stops all the idiotic joke, typo correction, and other bots that spam every thread, along with the hordes of idiots that further spam 'good bot', 'bad bot' to them, then site will be ever so marginally improved.
I would say it'd be a good thing if people mass-migrate away from reddit (they won't -- literally nothing will come of this), but I know whatever'd end up replacing it would be just as retarded, if not more so.
It's almost like the reddit founders saw Slashdot's moderation system, from which they were heavily inspired, threw out all the good parts and lessons learned, and removed anonymous commenting which gave the site a unique flavor, and created the largest circlejerk the internet has ever seen. Maybe it shouldn't have been a surprise to me the site became so successful, especially given the so-called visionary investors that came in early on and just threw money at it until it succeeded above other equally uninspired sites of the era (Digg).
I would say it'd be a good thing if people mass-migrate away from reddit (they won't -- literally nothing will come of this), but I know whatever'd end up replacing it would be just as retarded, if not more so.
It's almost like the reddit founders saw Slashdot's moderation system, from which they were heavily inspired, threw out all the good parts and lessons learned, and removed anonymous commenting which gave the site a unique flavor, and created the largest circlejerk the internet has ever seen. Maybe it shouldn't have been a surprise to me the site became so successful, especially given the so-called visionary investors that came in early on and just threw money at it until it succeeded above other equally uninspired sites of the era (Digg).
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,237,103
@previous (B)
I've never seen any halfway-decent site that allows anonymous comments. It just devolves right away.
I've never seen any halfway-decent site that allows anonymous comments. It just devolves right away.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,237,104
@previous (C)
You must've never seen slashdot in it's heyday. It worked because they had (have) a good moderation system that didn't completely devolve into "vote up" if you agree, "vote down" if you disagree. The key component that made it work was the meta moderation system which (mostly) prevented idiots from continually acquiring moderation points. Anonymous comments started out at a score of zero. People with accounts had a default score of one. Your "karma" (something like your average comment score) influenced your starting score for new comments. So people that had a history of thoughtful, funny, or otherwise useful comments would have their stuff be shown at higher or lower visibility. If your account or IP had a consistently low score, the site would start heavily throttling how frequently you could post. It all worked out pretty well and was far better than anything reddit's ever had in terms of encouraging actually useful discussion.
slashdot's downfall was two-fold: the threads (news stories) were overly curated and had to be approved by the site's editors. This prevented the site from growing and stifled the site's own organic culture because there was no way for the users to branch and start new sections of the site like the subreddit system. And secondly, they were sold various times to companies that didn't know or care about what made the site great. Combined with the first point of downfall, and the site started to feel very "corporate" and everyone slowly picked up and went elsewhere.
You must've never seen slashdot in it's heyday. It worked because they had (have) a good moderation system that didn't completely devolve into "vote up" if you agree, "vote down" if you disagree. The key component that made it work was the meta moderation system which (mostly) prevented idiots from continually acquiring moderation points. Anonymous comments started out at a score of zero. People with accounts had a default score of one. Your "karma" (something like your average comment score) influenced your starting score for new comments. So people that had a history of thoughtful, funny, or otherwise useful comments would have their stuff be shown at higher or lower visibility. If your account or IP had a consistently low score, the site would start heavily throttling how frequently you could post. It all worked out pretty well and was far better than anything reddit's ever had in terms of encouraging actually useful discussion.
slashdot's downfall was two-fold: the threads (news stories) were overly curated and had to be approved by the site's editors. This prevented the site from growing and stifled the site's own organic culture because there was no way for the users to branch and start new sections of the site like the subreddit system. And secondly, they were sold various times to companies that didn't know or care about what made the site great. Combined with the first point of downfall, and the site started to feel very "corporate" and everyone slowly picked up and went elsewhere.