4 ms·

Hostile design either makes the user login (a user reddit can monetize) or makes the user to close the site (a user reddit can't monetize, thus no need to waste

by tored 5y ago

Hostile design either makes the user login (a user reddit can monetize) or makes the user to close the site (a user reddit can't monetize, thus no need to waste resources), both scenarios is a win for reddit.

rognjen 5y ago
That's a very good characterization.
tux3 5y ago
Third scenario: People keep using it in anger until something better shows up, and by that time there will be enough unhappy people to spark a growing community in the New Place.
- ArkanExplorer 5y ago
  Big Tech has Reddit's back: they just ban new platforms for being insufficiently censorious (or at least, not censoring non-Leftists).
- bogwog 5y ago
  If that were true, it would've happened long ago. Say what you will about reddit's questionably/shitty policies, but they do a pretty decent job of keeping the extremists/racists/crazies/etc contained. Nearly every attempt at a reddit alternative over the years has been flooded by those types of people. Even if you ignore the fact that advertisers will avoid that community like a plague, the average person will want to avoid it too.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    > Nearly every attempt at a reddit alternative over the years has been flooded by those types of people Yes, most of the time because they have advertised themselves as a "free-speech place". Of course the people these places attract are the "5G is a Jewish conspiracy to vaccinate everybody" kinda people
    - 34679 5y ago
      It would be interesting if it turns out reddit has a team to flood new competitors with unsavory accounts. It's exactly what they did when they started reddit, just with positive fake accounts instead of negative. "Huffman said one other strategy proved crucial to Reddit’s early success, which most people are unaware of: The team submitted a ridiculous amount of content under fake user accounts to give the appearance of popularity." ... “The first thing it did was it set the tone,” by the activity it displayed to visitors, Huffman said. “We were submitting content that we would have been interested in seeing. That meant the content on Reddit … was good. And when you show up , you know exactly what the site is about.” https://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ https://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4444w/how-reddit-got-huge-tons-of-fake-accounts--2 https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4444w/how-reddit-got-huge-t... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/reddit-founders-made-hundreds-of-fake-profiles-so-site-looked-popular/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/reddi...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
thepete2 5y ago
The non-monetized user would still give content and attention to reddit. It seems to me that reddit moved from growth to monetization / exploitation.
heliodor 5y ago
If I can't access it, I can't share the posts nor will I click on ads. So it's not a clear easy win for them.
- gruez 5y ago
  ...assuming you don't cave and log in anyways.
  - rognjen 5y ago
    They seem to banking on that.
- rognjen 5y ago
  That's the thing. That's exactly me. BUT they still keep doing it. Which means that they've data to back up what they are doing. Probably "exploiting" less savvy and/or privacy conscious users.
forgotpwd16 5y ago
But an anonymous user can still click on ads.
Fnoord 5y ago
Correct, and as addendum: > How can this be good for them? > This is the question that keeps bothering me. Only thinking of short-term benefits aka typical behavior of publicly owned companies and VC.

by tored 5y ago

rognjen 5y ago

That's a very good characterization.

tux3 5y ago

Third scenario: People keep using it in anger until something better shows up, and by that time there will be enough unhappy people to spark a growing community in the New Place.

ArkanExplorer 5y ago
Big Tech has Reddit's back: they just ban new platforms for being insufficiently censorious (or at least, not censoring non-Leftists).
bogwog 5y ago
If that were true, it would've happened long ago. Say what you will about reddit's questionably/shitty policies, but they do a pretty decent job of keeping the extremists/racists/crazies/etc contained. Nearly every attempt at a reddit alternative over the years has been flooded by those types of people. Even if you ignore the fact that advertisers will avoid that community like a plague, the average person will want to avoid it too.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  > Nearly every attempt at a reddit alternative over the years has been flooded by those types of people Yes, most of the time because they have advertised themselves as a "free-speech place". Of course the people these places attract are the "5G is a Jewish conspiracy to vaccinate everybody" kinda people
  - 34679 5y ago
    It would be interesting if it turns out reddit has a team to flood new competitors with unsavory accounts. It's exactly what they did when they started reddit, just with positive fake accounts instead of negative. "Huffman said one other strategy proved crucial to Reddit’s early success, which most people are unaware of: The team submitted a ridiculous amount of content under fake user accounts to give the appearance of popularity." ... “The first thing it did was it set the tone,” by the activity it displayed to visitors, Huffman said. “We were submitting content that we would have been interested in seeing. That meant the content on Reddit … was good. And when you show up , you know exactly what the site is about.” https://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ https://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4444w/how-reddit-got-huge-tons-of-fake-accounts--2 https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4444w/how-reddit-got-huge-t... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/reddit-founders-made-hundreds-of-fake-profiles-so-site-looked-popular/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/reddi...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

thepete2 5y ago

The non-monetized user would still give content and attention to reddit. It seems to me that reddit moved from growth to monetization / exploitation.

heliodor 5y ago

If I can't access it, I can't share the posts nor will I click on ads. So it's not a clear easy win for them.

gruez 5y ago
...assuming you don't cave and log in anyways.
- rognjen 5y ago
  They seem to banking on that.
rognjen 5y ago
That's the thing. That's exactly me. BUT they still keep doing it. Which means that they've data to back up what they are doing. Probably "exploiting" less savvy and/or privacy conscious users.

forgotpwd16 5y ago

But an anonymous user can still click on ads.

Fnoord 5y ago

Correct, and as addendum: > How can this be good for them? > This is the question that keeps bothering me. Only thinking of short-term benefits aka typical behavior of publicly owned companies and VC.