4 ms·

Very interesting article. There was a data viz (gender vs visits) that was needlessly flashy, when a simple x-y scatter would have been more clear. One part s

by Fede_V 11y ago

Very interesting article. There was a data viz (gender vs visits) that was needlessly flashy, when a simple x-y scatter would have been more clear. One part struck me though: Erwin sees evidence of it already, pointing to the recent debut of Upvoted, a Reddit podcast delving into the site’s most compelling stories. “Reddit is very much trying to establish itself as a curator of its own content and take back some of that space from BuzzFeed,” Erwin says. The 'content' on Reddit is made by its users. Sure, it's annoying when Buzzfeed packages it up into an article and sells it for clicks (though if you visit Buzzfeed it's your own fault) but it does not belong to anyone. Reddit, by itself, is an empty vessel - its only value is in retaining its creative users and staying user friendly enough that those users keep drawing more and more people in. The vessel itself is completely worthless. As much as it sucks to have to cater to the whims of the users, they represent the only real value Reddit has. I will be watching very closely to see how the new admins get rid of the truly toxic subreddits, while still retaining the culture of openness and anonymity. It is a very difficult tightrope walk.

impostervt 11y ago
According to Reddit's user agreement, you own content you submit, but you give Reddit a "do whatever you want with it, even to make money off of it" license. https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement#p_17 https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement#p_17
- mahouse 11y ago
  Is it me or this is stupid? I mean, this is the digital world, you can make as many copies as you want, so if you give them a licence to whatever they want with it, what are your options after submitting something?
  - bcostlow 11y ago
    Not sure if you are saying it's stupid on Reddit's part, or the users'. For Reddit it's smart. Licensing doesn't just mean making an exact copy. Let's say Reddit was the one that packaged up a story posted on /r/nosleep/ and sold film rights—the user who posted that stuff would have an uphill battle to get anything from Reddit's profits on the arrangement. But, as a user, you can still make your own deals (you still own and can license the content yourself to others), and you probably can only make that deal because of Reddit exposure.
    - lingben 11y ago
      exactly, /r/romesweetrome comes to mind among many others
  - nadams 11y ago
    You could stamp everyone of your posts with a CC-NC license. Since the content is yours - I don't think they can magically wave the CC-NC license on the basis that you uploaded it to their site.
    - ianlevesque 11y ago
      IANAL but if you agreed to their terms and uploaded something then you've relicensed it to them. This is the same as those misguided souls posting copyright notices under their Facebook messages.
      - nadams 11y ago
        I mean TOS, EULAs etc only go so far. If you think they are the word of god - then I'll create a TOS on my site that says for every page view you agree to pay me $X. Then when I sue you to get the money - any judge who isn't taking mind altering drugs should throw it out. Interestingly enough Apple also had their Safari EULA state that you couldn't install it on a PC [1]. Obviously it was never brought to court - but still I'm sure thousands of people violated the EULA. My take is yes - someone who operates a website/service can blanket content you upload unless you explicitly state otherwise. So here is a hypothetical question - you own the copyright of the material in question. Reddit makes a copy of your reddit post for their daily feed or something - could you send a DMCA removal request? I'm sure you would say no because of the TOS - but don't you own the original copyright? > This is the same as those misguided souls posting copyright notices under their Facebook messages. And from what I read basically Facebook has the ability to use public posts/pictures - which makes total sense (posting the copyright notice only makes you look like a fool). If you don't want them to use it - adjust your privacy settings. Here is an example of a ridiculous TOS [2]. > Permission is granted to freely print, unmodified, up to 200 copies How do you know how many I printed? Perhaps I scanned copies - would those be considered prints? [1] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agreed/ http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre... [2] http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
    - herge 11y ago
      If you use their service, you first have to agree to their terms. You can put any magical gobledy-gook in your text, but your 'active' (if only by clicking on a button) acceptance of their terms will hold up better in court. Same as for this text right here and the good folks at ycombinator. Now for your own content hosted on your own site that you control, it's a whole other story.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- bcostlow 11y ago
  Yes, but I think the larger point is, if Reddit pisses off the people creating interesting content, they will leave. Reddit's user agreement doesn't mean jack if nobody is submitting anything.
- seiji 11y ago
  At the beginning of online video, YouTube started with the same "we can resell your videos and do whatever we want without asking you" clause. Vimeo didn't have that. A lot of content producers would only upload to Vimeo (vimeo also had full HD support years before YouTube). Over time, people realized they can't beat the reach/speed/search/recommendations of YouTube, so now everybody gives in and lets GooTube just do whatever they want with the content in exchange for better and more-consistent-across-platforms exposure.
norea-armozel 11y ago
This oddly reminds me of how YTMND was back in the day. Now it's mostly a niche site, but when it was semi-popular among certain segments Internet users it had some conflicts erupt between users such as atheists vs Christians being a classic spat on the site. Reddit seems to exhibit some of that coarse nature in its user base at least from my own experiences. I'm not sure Reddit's owners can herd the users into compliance. For me the most likely outcome will be the slow decline of Reddit because users that aren't even affected by the policy changes and enforcement (even helped and protected with the banning of subreddits like /r/beatingtrannies and /r/fatpeoplehate) will see it as a possible threat to how they can submit content to the site. It's that unintended effect that Reddit's owners need to be aware of because it's what's killed smaller forums and sites.
- thearn4 11y ago
  Ah YTMND... what a sharp rise and steady fall https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=YTMND&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4 https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=YTMND&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%...
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    I know. It's sad, really. They still have contributors that make some interesting pages, but it's nothing like the old days. There was one user who took paintings by Bosch and turned them into animations. It was rather unsettling (Bosch's work always looked creepy to me) to look at them initially, but they were damn good imo.
moron4hire 11y ago
I find it really hard to believe that Reddit's users aren't like the rest of the internet. Only 1% of users on a site create content, followed by 9% "participating" on top of that newly created content, followed by 90% just lurking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) Even if it's not that exact breakdown, I'd be extremely surprised if the lurking users didn't dwarf the active users, and the just-commenting users didn't dwarf the actual creators. The "content" on Reddit isn't made by its users, either. Redditors are just collectors, no less than any Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, or G+ users. No less than BuzzFeed or BusinessInsider.
- arprocter 11y ago
  I'd guess the lurk percentage (I assume you mean lurkers are people looking at the site who don't have accounts) may be lower than usual, because you can't subscribe to subreddits without an account
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Lurker is usually defined by the fact that they don't participate. Whether or not they have an account isn't usually a factor, though obviously being non-participants they usually have little incentive to create an account. Up-vote buttons usually drag in a few percentage points more of lurkers into creating accounts. Generally speaking, the more of a continuum of ability to participate in a site that you have, and the easier it is to sign up for an account, the more you will capture non-registered users as registered users. This is why sites like Twitter, Pintrest, and Tumblr have found relative ease in gaining growth, compared to their general value proposition as compared to older, more traditional blogging platforms like Blogger or WordPress. Because they have completely streamlined the re-sharing type of participation, they target their sites explicitly at that 9% of users who participate but don't create, rather than the much smaller 1% of users who create content. Regardless, the emphasis of the 90-9-1 rule is on content creation and participation, not on the number of registered accounts. It even applies to largely account-less sites like 4chan.
    - 11y ago

by Fede_V 11y ago

impostervt 11y ago

According to Reddit's user agreement, you own content you submit, but you give Reddit a "do whatever you want with it, even to make money off of it" license. https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement#p_17 https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement#p_17

mahouse 11y ago
Is it me or this is stupid? I mean, this is the digital world, you can make as many copies as you want, so if you give them a licence to whatever they want with it, what are your options after submitting something?
- bcostlow 11y ago
  Not sure if you are saying it's stupid on Reddit's part, or the users'. For Reddit it's smart. Licensing doesn't just mean making an exact copy. Let's say Reddit was the one that packaged up a story posted on /r/nosleep/ and sold film rights—the user who posted that stuff would have an uphill battle to get anything from Reddit's profits on the arrangement. But, as a user, you can still make your own deals (you still own and can license the content yourself to others), and you probably can only make that deal because of Reddit exposure.
  - lingben 11y ago
    exactly, /r/romesweetrome comes to mind among many others
- nadams 11y ago
  You could stamp everyone of your posts with a CC-NC license. Since the content is yours - I don't think they can magically wave the CC-NC license on the basis that you uploaded it to their site.
  - ianlevesque 11y ago
    IANAL but if you agreed to their terms and uploaded something then you've relicensed it to them. This is the same as those misguided souls posting copyright notices under their Facebook messages.
    - nadams 11y ago
      I mean TOS, EULAs etc only go so far. If you think they are the word of god - then I'll create a TOS on my site that says for every page view you agree to pay me $X. Then when I sue you to get the money - any judge who isn't taking mind altering drugs should throw it out. Interestingly enough Apple also had their Safari EULA state that you couldn't install it on a PC [1]. Obviously it was never brought to court - but still I'm sure thousands of people violated the EULA. My take is yes - someone who operates a website/service can blanket content you upload unless you explicitly state otherwise. So here is a hypothetical question - you own the copyright of the material in question. Reddit makes a copy of your reddit post for their daily feed or something - could you send a DMCA removal request? I'm sure you would say no because of the TOS - but don't you own the original copyright? > This is the same as those misguided souls posting copyright notices under their Facebook messages. And from what I read basically Facebook has the ability to use public posts/pictures - which makes total sense (posting the copyright notice only makes you look like a fool). If you don't want them to use it - adjust your privacy settings. Here is an example of a ridiculous TOS [2]. > Permission is granted to freely print, unmodified, up to 200 copies How do you know how many I printed? Perhaps I scanned copies - would those be considered prints? [1] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agreed/ http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre... [2] http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
  - herge 11y ago
    If you use their service, you first have to agree to their terms. You can put any magical gobledy-gook in your text, but your 'active' (if only by clicking on a button) acceptance of their terms will hold up better in court. Same as for this text right here and the good folks at ycombinator. Now for your own content hosted on your own site that you control, it's a whole other story.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bcostlow 11y ago
Yes, but I think the larger point is, if Reddit pisses off the people creating interesting content, they will leave. Reddit's user agreement doesn't mean jack if nobody is submitting anything.
seiji 11y ago
At the beginning of online video, YouTube started with the same "we can resell your videos and do whatever we want without asking you" clause. Vimeo didn't have that. A lot of content producers would only upload to Vimeo (vimeo also had full HD support years before YouTube). Over time, people realized they can't beat the reach/speed/search/recommendations of YouTube, so now everybody gives in and lets GooTube just do whatever they want with the content in exchange for better and more-consistent-across-platforms exposure.

norea-armozel 11y ago

This oddly reminds me of how YTMND was back in the day. Now it's mostly a niche site, but when it was semi-popular among certain segments Internet users it had some conflicts erupt between users such as atheists vs Christians being a classic spat on the site. Reddit seems to exhibit some of that coarse nature in its user base at least from my own experiences. I'm not sure Reddit's owners can herd the users into compliance. For me the most likely outcome will be the slow decline of Reddit because users that aren't even affected by the policy changes and enforcement (even helped and protected with the banning of subreddits like /r/beatingtrannies and /r/fatpeoplehate) will see it as a possible threat to how they can submit content to the site. It's that unintended effect that Reddit's owners need to be aware of because it's what's killed smaller forums and sites.

thearn4 11y ago
Ah YTMND... what a sharp rise and steady fall https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=YTMND&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4 https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=YTMND&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%...
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  I know. It's sad, really. They still have contributors that make some interesting pages, but it's nothing like the old days. There was one user who took paintings by Bosch and turned them into animations. It was rather unsettling (Bosch's work always looked creepy to me) to look at them initially, but they were damn good imo.

moron4hire 11y ago

I find it really hard to believe that Reddit's users aren't like the rest of the internet. Only 1% of users on a site create content, followed by 9% "participating" on top of that newly created content, followed by 90% just lurking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) Even if it's not that exact breakdown, I'd be extremely surprised if the lurking users didn't dwarf the active users, and the just-commenting users didn't dwarf the actual creators. The "content" on Reddit isn't made by its users, either. Redditors are just collectors, no less than any Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, or G+ users. No less than BuzzFeed or BusinessInsider.

arprocter 11y ago
I'd guess the lurk percentage (I assume you mean lurkers are people looking at the site who don't have accounts) may be lower than usual, because you can't subscribe to subreddits without an account
- moron4hire 11y ago
  Lurker is usually defined by the fact that they don't participate. Whether or not they have an account isn't usually a factor, though obviously being non-participants they usually have little incentive to create an account. Up-vote buttons usually drag in a few percentage points more of lurkers into creating accounts. Generally speaking, the more of a continuum of ability to participate in a site that you have, and the easier it is to sign up for an account, the more you will capture non-registered users as registered users. This is why sites like Twitter, Pintrest, and Tumblr have found relative ease in gaining growth, compared to their general value proposition as compared to older, more traditional blogging platforms like Blogger or WordPress. Because they have completely streamlined the re-sharing type of participation, they target their sites explicitly at that 9% of users who participate but don't create, rather than the much smaller 1% of users who create content. Regardless, the emphasis of the 90-9-1 rule is on content creation and participation, not on the number of registered accounts. It even applies to largely account-less sites like 4chan.
  - 11y ago