5 ms·

What is going to be the successor to Reddit? Maybe some type of federated Mastodon-like thing?

bee_rider 5y ago
It is hard because unfortunately, lots of these federated websites seem to attract the sort of person who was banned from Reddit... and not being banned from Reddit is a pretty low bar. Lemmy seems OK, though (and IIRC is actively trying to avoid that fate somehow).
- ggreer 5y ago
  Scott Alexander talked about this six years ago[1]: > HL Mencken once said that “the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” > There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong commitment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. 1. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    If that's the case then what makes rest if the internet as whole any different? Who gets to define what constitutes a scoundrel?
    - gruez 5y ago
      >If that's the case then what makes rest if the internet as whole any different? Because it doesn't have the adverse selection problem since it appeals to mainstream audiences. That could be bad as well if your prior userbase was above average, ie. "eternal September" >Who gets to define what constitutes a scoundrel? I don't think thats worth discussing. You don't need an exact definition of a "scoundrel" to see why free speech reddit clones tend to attract a certain kind of user base.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). Until then it was used by the very same groups of free speechers you take issue with: the cypherpunks, Usenet groupees, technically-inclined social pariahs, waggish college students, anarchists, etc. In short, the contrarians. Of course there is adverse selection if one is looking for remnants of an Internet before or some several years after Eternal September. Mainstream usage does not imply that something is free from scoundrels. The only change is in the kind of scoundrels preferred. Social media (i.e Facebook et al), on both the corporate and consumer sides, is a testament to that. And I certainly think it's worth discussing what constitues a scoundrel. After all Scott Alexander himself has infamously been regarded as one by mainstream institutions like the New York Times. For him to be quoted as an expert on the subject is painfully ironic.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        gruez 5y ago
        >It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). Until then it was used by the very same groups of free speechers you take issue with: the cypherpunks, Usenet groupees, technically-inclined social pariahs, waggish college students, anarchists, etc. In short, the contrarians. I don't think "contrarians" in the early internet are the "scoundrels" that alexander scott was talking about. Specifically, it's possible to be a contrarian but not be that type of contrarian that you get on voat. Also, how free speech are those venues in the early internet? Were they literally "as long as it's legal we'll let you post it"? Could you get away with spamming racist posts, or would you get shunned/blocked by the community? >Of course there is adverse selection if one is looking for remnants of an Internet before or some several years after Eternal September. Mainstream usage does not imply that something is free from scoundrels. It's not free of scoundrels, but they're diluted and moderated to the point that you don't notice them.
        5y ago
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Federation means that each site can introduce their own standards for moderation, so that's hardly an insurmountable problem.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  It's easy, just write something not entirely positive about transgenderism.
andrewzah 5y ago
No, as decentralization merely complicates onboarding users while not really solving anything and creating new problems. The fediverse will still be nice for an alternative social media/blog sphere. My guess is something will pop up with good UX and rules, that a critical mass moves to. Something akin to lemmy, but centralized.

It is hard because unfortunately, lots of these federated websites seem to attract the sort of person who was banned from Reddit... and not being banned from Reddit is a pretty low bar. Lemmy seems OK, though (and IIRC is actively trying to avoid that fate somehow).

ggreer 5y ago
Scott Alexander talked about this six years ago[1]: > HL Mencken once said that “the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” > There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong commitment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. 1. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  If that's the case then what makes rest if the internet as whole any different? Who gets to define what constitutes a scoundrel?
  - gruez 5y ago
    >If that's the case then what makes rest if the internet as whole any different? Because it doesn't have the adverse selection problem since it appeals to mainstream audiences. That could be bad as well if your prior userbase was above average, ie. "eternal September" >Who gets to define what constitutes a scoundrel? I don't think thats worth discussing. You don't need an exact definition of a "scoundrel" to see why free speech reddit clones tend to attract a certain kind of user base.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). Until then it was used by the very same groups of free speechers you take issue with: the cypherpunks, Usenet groupees, technically-inclined social pariahs, waggish college students, anarchists, etc. In short, the contrarians. Of course there is adverse selection if one is looking for remnants of an Internet before or some several years after Eternal September. Mainstream usage does not imply that something is free from scoundrels. The only change is in the kind of scoundrels preferred. Social media (i.e Facebook et al), on both the corporate and consumer sides, is a testament to that. And I certainly think it's worth discussing what constitues a scoundrel. After all Scott Alexander himself has infamously been regarded as one by mainstream institutions like the New York Times. For him to be quoted as an expert on the subject is painfully ironic.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - gruez 5y ago
        >It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). Until then it was used by the very same groups of free speechers you take issue with: the cypherpunks, Usenet groupees, technically-inclined social pariahs, waggish college students, anarchists, etc. In short, the contrarians. I don't think "contrarians" in the early internet are the "scoundrels" that alexander scott was talking about. Specifically, it's possible to be a contrarian but not be that type of contrarian that you get on voat. Also, how free speech are those venues in the early internet? Were they literally "as long as it's legal we'll let you post it"? Could you get away with spamming racist posts, or would you get shunned/blocked by the community? >Of course there is adverse selection if one is looking for remnants of an Internet before or some several years after Eternal September. Mainstream usage does not imply that something is free from scoundrels. It's not free of scoundrels, but they're diluted and moderated to the point that you don't notice them.
        5y ago
zozbot234 5y ago
Federation means that each site can introduce their own standards for moderation, so that's hardly an insurmountable problem.
himinlomax 5y ago
It's easy, just write something not entirely positive about transgenderism.

andrewzah 5y ago

No, as decentralization merely complicates onboarding users while not really solving anything and creating new problems. The fediverse will still be nice for an alternative social media/blog sphere. My guess is something will pop up with good UX and rules, that a critical mass moves to. Something akin to lemmy, but centralized.