6 ms·

I see why they want to create their own curated content. A friend of mine has created and run several user-generated content sites and he said: "user generated

I see why they want to create their own curated content. A friend of mine has created and run several user-generated content sites and he said: "user generated content is worthless; largely racism and porn." It's driven by the lowest common denominator. As long as content is hosted on company-controlled servers where ad revenue is the model for survival, you're going to see slow declines and eventual busts like Digg. Users hate being advertised to and censored. The future is probably something where people pay a small amount to access a forum that's somehow distributed on their machines (phones, PCs, etc) and not controlled by any organization. Data transfer (even mobile) and storage are getting cheaper. It'll be like bitcoin, but for discussions.

mintplant 10y ago
So, Usenet?
- cerrelio 10y ago
  Yes, but for tech-illiterate millennials. Usenet has to be wrapped in various interfaces to make it usable/searchable, and usually shitty VPNs are hawked as add-on to help you avoid your ISP sending you nastygrams for downloading all of Sex and the City or whatever Marvel superhero movie is the current rage.
drusepth 10y ago
As an average user, why would I care whether that forum is online or distributed to my machine?
- cerrelio 10y ago
  You usually don't. Until someone comes along as says "you can't say that" and removes your content, because you don't control it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
gozur88 10y ago
>As long as content is hosted on company-controlled servers where ad revenue is the model for survival, you're going to see slow declines and eventual busts like Digg. That's really not what happened at Digg. The problem at Digg was a structure which rewarded "power users" and allowed third party commercial interests to gain control of the site. It's bad enough that Digg had advertising - eventually we were looking at Digg ads to get to content that was itself advertising. And not all user generated content is worthless. Youtube is a good example of this - I can point to user after user who has uploaded quality original content of one kind or another for years. Yes, 90% of it is crap, but if you subscribe to the channels you like and check out the channels your subscriptions recommend, you can avoid nearly all of it. And, you know, Sturgeon's Law.
- cerrelio 10y ago
  Digg failed because of attempts to monetize it better through ads. Users revolted and eventually it crumbled. Users weren't able to control their content. Regarding your second point, if you include Youtube comments, and not just the videos, it's definitely 90% crap.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    I disagree on Digg. I didn't mind the ads. Not enough to stop using the site, anyway. What I minded was the transition of the content to advertising. Plus, at the same time they did a site redesign that made it look like one of those auto-generated news sites. Comments on youtube... yeah, they're crap for most videos. I guess technically comments are user generated content, but I never really think of them that way. Even more so on a site like youtube where the videos are the important bit.
- vintermann 10y ago
  Yes, to say that user generated content is porn and racism, that really says more about the person saying it. (A more real problem is that early adopters of any web community building effort are overwhelmingly just there to self-promote in one form or another.)
a_small_island 10y ago
>"The future is probably something where people pay a small amount to access a forum that's somehow distributed on their machines (phones, PCs, etc) and not controlled by any organization. Data transfer (even mobile) and storage are getting cheaper. It'll be like bitcoin, but for discussions." No. The future is the next Digg, the next Reddit, etc. Just like a torrent site, when one goes down (for whatever reason), the next in line pops up to take its place (and users). The internet does not want to pay money to access a forum. The internet also does not want to be advertised to. So the cycle will continue.
- cerrelio 10y ago
  With the advent of the cloud and the ubiquity of mobile devices, the next Digg won't be controlled by anyone other than the users. They will supply the storage and bandwidth. The community will truly be in charge, and also be responsible for policing it. When the cost (time) of policing it becomes too much (even with machine-learning bots to remove ads, child porn, hate speech, harassment, etc), then a new version of that model will appear.
  - jboles 10y ago
    While we're at it, we can also throw blockchain at the problem. It will be hosted on Etherium as the DAO (Distributed Authoring Organisation). Policy changes require 51% of the computing power. If someone doesn't like some content, they can fork off and make their own child DAO, living in a universe where that content no longer exists.
- ben_jones 10y ago
  Here's the problem (IMO): Reddit has too many features and too big a userbase to replicate as Reddit itself did a decade ago. voat.co has been in development for years and still lacks crucial systems for things like content moderation, monetization, scaling, etc. Essentially for a coup of Reddit to occur you have to take a large chunk of Reddit at once. That is very hard to do.
  - chme 10y ago
white-flame 10y ago
There's this place between "create their own curated content" and free-for-all "user generated content" that is "moderated & curated user generated content".
- jsemrau 10y ago
  Isn't that imgur?
Animats 10y ago
How much does it really cost to run a forum system? Even a big one? Look at 4chan.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Well, I imagine Reddit costs far more than 4chan to run, not just because they store the content at perpetuity, but also because Reddit has actual employees, not just volunteers working out of the g... evil of their hearts. But, more importantly, how much Reddit costs to run, at their current scale, is immaterial. Reddit has raised $50 million in VC money and is valued at $500 million, that means that half a billion is the mark they are expected to meet/exceed in lifetime revenue, independent on what their costs are. For better or worse, for-profit startups have very different incentives than non-corporate internet communities. This allows Reddit to not be 4chan (wider audience, some level of control on trolling and harassment, etc), but at the same time, it can't be 4chan (including running on a ramen-for-one-and-electricity-bill budget if need to be)
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Sites like Reddit should not be businesses in the first place. There's a conflict of interest right there, between the very idea of community site and the needs of a business. They've been handling it somewhat gracefully to date, but business pressures increase... Normally I'd suggest they start another business doing some honest work (i.e. not ad revenue). Say, a hosting service, since they have experience with that already. Reddit then could become a marketing expense for them - something they'd run for the sole ability to say "Yes, we're the ones who're running the Front Page of the Internet! As you can see, we have some experience!". But, as you said, they took VC money. It changes the picture significantly. I'm not sure they can be helped. In every get-rich-quick scheme there's a catch. In startups, the catch is that if you care about your product then taking VC money is a difficult decision because it means surrendering your business to the whims of people who absolutely don't care about your product.
  - Animats 10y ago
    That means Reddit is trying to run a high-margin business in a low-margin space. As ad blockers get better, that may stop working. At one time, it was expensive to run a service with a large user base. Technology has progressed, and it no longer is. Craigslist wiped the entire classified ad industry and much of the newspaper industry off the face of the earth merely by being the low-cost provider. Ad-supported businesses should be afraid. Very afraid. As for Reddit, the VCs may have to take a haircut.
skewart 10y ago
> A friend of mine has created and run several user-generated content sites and he said: "user generated content is worthless; largely racism and porn." It's driven by the lowest common denominator. What about HN? I don't disagree that a lot of ugc on the web is crap. I do think though that there are viable strategies for encouraging quality content.
dorfsmay 10y ago
> user generated content is worthless; largely racism and porn." It's driven by the lowest common denominator stackoverflow would be one counter example. So would a lot of subreddit (IS, CS, and science oriented ones for example). Oh and what about wikipedia?

mintplant 10y ago

So, Usenet?

cerrelio 10y ago
Yes, but for tech-illiterate millennials. Usenet has to be wrapped in various interfaces to make it usable/searchable, and usually shitty VPNs are hawked as add-on to help you avoid your ISP sending you nastygrams for downloading all of Sex and the City or whatever Marvel superhero movie is the current rage.

drusepth 10y ago

As an average user, why would I care whether that forum is online or distributed to my machine?

cerrelio 10y ago
You usually don't. Until someone comes along as says "you can't say that" and removes your content, because you don't control it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

gozur88 10y ago

>As long as content is hosted on company-controlled servers where ad revenue is the model for survival, you're going to see slow declines and eventual busts like Digg. That's really not what happened at Digg. The problem at Digg was a structure which rewarded "power users" and allowed third party commercial interests to gain control of the site. It's bad enough that Digg had advertising - eventually we were looking at Digg ads to get to content that was itself advertising. And not all user generated content is worthless. Youtube is a good example of this - I can point to user after user who has uploaded quality original content of one kind or another for years. Yes, 90% of it is crap, but if you subscribe to the channels you like and check out the channels your subscriptions recommend, you can avoid nearly all of it. And, you know, Sturgeon's Law.

cerrelio 10y ago
Digg failed because of attempts to monetize it better through ads. Users revolted and eventually it crumbled. Users weren't able to control their content. Regarding your second point, if you include Youtube comments, and not just the videos, it's definitely 90% crap.
- gozur88 10y ago
  I disagree on Digg. I didn't mind the ads. Not enough to stop using the site, anyway. What I minded was the transition of the content to advertising. Plus, at the same time they did a site redesign that made it look like one of those auto-generated news sites. Comments on youtube... yeah, they're crap for most videos. I guess technically comments are user generated content, but I never really think of them that way. Even more so on a site like youtube where the videos are the important bit.
vintermann 10y ago
Yes, to say that user generated content is porn and racism, that really says more about the person saying it. (A more real problem is that early adopters of any web community building effort are overwhelmingly just there to self-promote in one form or another.)

a_small_island 10y ago

>"The future is probably something where people pay a small amount to access a forum that's somehow distributed on their machines (phones, PCs, etc) and not controlled by any organization. Data transfer (even mobile) and storage are getting cheaper. It'll be like bitcoin, but for discussions." No. The future is the next Digg, the next Reddit, etc. Just like a torrent site, when one goes down (for whatever reason), the next in line pops up to take its place (and users). The internet does not want to pay money to access a forum. The internet also does not want to be advertised to. So the cycle will continue.

cerrelio 10y ago
With the advent of the cloud and the ubiquity of mobile devices, the next Digg won't be controlled by anyone other than the users. They will supply the storage and bandwidth. The community will truly be in charge, and also be responsible for policing it. When the cost (time) of policing it becomes too much (even with machine-learning bots to remove ads, child porn, hate speech, harassment, etc), then a new version of that model will appear.
- jboles 10y ago
  While we're at it, we can also throw blockchain at the problem. It will be hosted on Etherium as the DAO (Distributed Authoring Organisation). Policy changes require 51% of the computing power. If someone doesn't like some content, they can fork off and make their own child DAO, living in a universe where that content no longer exists.
ben_jones 10y ago
Here's the problem (IMO): Reddit has too many features and too big a userbase to replicate as Reddit itself did a decade ago. voat.co has been in development for years and still lacks crucial systems for things like content moderation, monetization, scaling, etc. Essentially for a coup of Reddit to occur you have to take a large chunk of Reddit at once. That is very hard to do.
- chme 10y ago

white-flame 10y ago

There's this place between "create their own curated content" and free-for-all "user generated content" that is "moderated & curated user generated content".

jsemrau 10y ago
Isn't that imgur?

Animats 10y ago

How much does it really cost to run a forum system? Even a big one? Look at 4chan.

lazaroclapp 10y ago
Well, I imagine Reddit costs far more than 4chan to run, not just because they store the content at perpetuity, but also because Reddit has actual employees, not just volunteers working out of the g... evil of their hearts. But, more importantly, how much Reddit costs to run, at their current scale, is immaterial. Reddit has raised $50 million in VC money and is valued at $500 million, that means that half a billion is the mark they are expected to meet/exceed in lifetime revenue, independent on what their costs are. For better or worse, for-profit startups have very different incentives than non-corporate internet communities. This allows Reddit to not be 4chan (wider audience, some level of control on trolling and harassment, etc), but at the same time, it can't be 4chan (including running on a ramen-for-one-and-electricity-bill budget if need to be)
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Sites like Reddit should not be businesses in the first place. There's a conflict of interest right there, between the very idea of community site and the needs of a business. They've been handling it somewhat gracefully to date, but business pressures increase... Normally I'd suggest they start another business doing some honest work (i.e. not ad revenue). Say, a hosting service, since they have experience with that already. Reddit then could become a marketing expense for them - something they'd run for the sole ability to say "Yes, we're the ones who're running the Front Page of the Internet! As you can see, we have some experience!". But, as you said, they took VC money. It changes the picture significantly. I'm not sure they can be helped. In every get-rich-quick scheme there's a catch. In startups, the catch is that if you care about your product then taking VC money is a difficult decision because it means surrendering your business to the whims of people who absolutely don't care about your product.
- Animats 10y ago
  That means Reddit is trying to run a high-margin business in a low-margin space. As ad blockers get better, that may stop working. At one time, it was expensive to run a service with a large user base. Technology has progressed, and it no longer is. Craigslist wiped the entire classified ad industry and much of the newspaper industry off the face of the earth merely by being the low-cost provider. Ad-supported businesses should be afraid. Very afraid. As for Reddit, the VCs may have to take a haircut.

skewart 10y ago

> A friend of mine has created and run several user-generated content sites and he said: "user generated content is worthless; largely racism and porn." It's driven by the lowest common denominator. What about HN? I don't disagree that a lot of ugc on the web is crap. I do think though that there are viable strategies for encouraging quality content.

dorfsmay 10y ago

> user generated content is worthless; largely racism and porn." It's driven by the lowest common denominator stackoverflow would be one counter example. So would a lot of subreddit (IS, CS, and science oriented ones for example). Oh and what about wikipedia?