6 ms·

It's easy to shut off assholes if you are an even bigger asshole yourself. I shall not point fingers but the the demise of online forums and the meteoric rise o

It's easy to shut off assholes if you are an even bigger asshole yourself. I shall not point fingers but the the demise of online forums and the meteoric rise of Facebook is a proof. There were certain values that websites in 00-ies had and that were eroded by the likes of Facebook, LinkedIn and yes, even Reddit. I am still operating an old-style online forum that shrank from tens of thousands of users to a dozen occasional visitors, and I attribute its decline to its core values: anonymity, absence of monetization, minimal moderation.

seunosewa 4y ago
Since you run it, why not change the core values?
- LocalH 4y ago
  The core values would be the entire benefit to the form of communication. The massive decline in classic forums has been a net negative for the Internet. The 2000s forum culture was a lot different from the current state of things, and better in many ways. You didn't have the level of de facto censorship that you see now with the massive centralized communication platforms.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >You didn't have the level of de facto censorship that you see now with the massive centralized communication platforms. I disagree. Not every forum was SA or 4chan, plenty were aggressively moderated. The primary difference between then and now that I see is that, back then, moderation wasn't always considered censorship.
    - LocalH 4y ago
      I'm talking about the upper level of modern content moderation, imposed by the platforms themselves. It's the autonomy that is missing nowadays.
      - sam_lowry_ 4y ago
        >primary difference between then and now is that there is little choice and even less variation
asdfsafwea 4y ago
Is "absence of monetization" a value? Do we expect this with any other business other than the ones on the internet - news papers, magazines, local community events etc. Absence of monetization, to me means its a hobby project funded by you and not a business, that also perhaps means it has not kept up with the competition - think servers, performance, websites, mobile apps etc. Maybe avoiding ad based monetization could be what you are talking about but then you still got to pay the bills some how, so unless you monetize, I don't know how a business would survive. Considering this, I don't think its a surprise that your users are on the decline. Besides, doesn't everyone like to complain about ads online but very few really want to pay for alternative paid services anyway e.g. email, navigation, private messaging etc
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  It is a value. It means that the incentives of the user and the producer are aligned: to enjoy the time in a community, rather than have one try to extract money. Aside from that, not everything needs to be a business, and even then, not everything needs to be profitable.
  - caracustard 4y ago
    By that logic lets stop paying street sweepers and sanitation workers. See, their incenitives are mutually aligned with the interests of those who walk the streets, so there is no reason to "extract money". Sure thing, but the article in question EXPLICITLY mentions "You should make a budget that supports having a good community, or you should find another line of work.", which means that one way or another funding is needed, unless you're comfortable with making someone read through kilobytes of drivel and spam in their free (or perhaps not so free) time.
    - rhn_mk1 4y ago
      I'm sure if you stopped paying the street sweepers, you'd find out that a lot of them don't care about sanitation, and the rest can't pick up the burden. That's why they get paid. Even then, I'd rather have one of those motivated by cleanliness service my area. Just the same way, I'll choose a forum that's not monetized. I don't see how that sentence means that funding is needed. Plenty of forums exist with community moderation. Whether the person doing the work is compensated in respect and social connections, or money, doesn't really make a difference to me.
Bluecobra 4y ago
I always thought that Something Awful’s $10 paywall was pretty effective. If you’re an asshole and break the the rules, you’re out $10 and have to pay again. If you’re a big enough asshole, then you get permabanned. You’ll hear a lot of people complain about it and never register over the $10. I paid my $10 once almost 20 years ago and never got banned. That was the best $10 I have ever spent.
- mountainb 4y ago
  You're deeply confused if you think SA is/was not essentially defined by some of the most capriciously cruel people online. The founder just shot himself after leaving behind a wrecked family with multiple ex-wives, abandoned children, and DV convictions. FYAD, Helldump, etc. really define the spirit of SA, and it's also a precise counterexample to your argument about paywalls being a good thing.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    Metafilter (used to?) charge $5 in the same vein. That Lowtax was a piece of shit says nothing about his effectiveness in separating assholes from their money. The system works.

seunosewa 4y ago

Since you run it, why not change the core values?

LocalH 4y ago
The core values would be the entire benefit to the form of communication. The massive decline in classic forums has been a net negative for the Internet. The 2000s forum culture was a lot different from the current state of things, and better in many ways. You didn't have the level of de facto censorship that you see now with the massive centralized communication platforms.
- krapp 4y ago
  >You didn't have the level of de facto censorship that you see now with the massive centralized communication platforms. I disagree. Not every forum was SA or 4chan, plenty were aggressively moderated. The primary difference between then and now that I see is that, back then, moderation wasn't always considered censorship.
  - LocalH 4y ago
    I'm talking about the upper level of modern content moderation, imposed by the platforms themselves. It's the autonomy that is missing nowadays.
    - sam_lowry_ 4y ago
      >primary difference between then and now is that there is little choice and even less variation

asdfsafwea 4y ago

Is "absence of monetization" a value? Do we expect this with any other business other than the ones on the internet - news papers, magazines, local community events etc. Absence of monetization, to me means its a hobby project funded by you and not a business, that also perhaps means it has not kept up with the competition - think servers, performance, websites, mobile apps etc. Maybe avoiding ad based monetization could be what you are talking about but then you still got to pay the bills some how, so unless you monetize, I don't know how a business would survive. Considering this, I don't think its a surprise that your users are on the decline. Besides, doesn't everyone like to complain about ads online but very few really want to pay for alternative paid services anyway e.g. email, navigation, private messaging etc

rhn_mk1 4y ago
It is a value. It means that the incentives of the user and the producer are aligned: to enjoy the time in a community, rather than have one try to extract money. Aside from that, not everything needs to be a business, and even then, not everything needs to be profitable.
- caracustard 4y ago
  By that logic lets stop paying street sweepers and sanitation workers. See, their incenitives are mutually aligned with the interests of those who walk the streets, so there is no reason to "extract money". Sure thing, but the article in question EXPLICITLY mentions "You should make a budget that supports having a good community, or you should find another line of work.", which means that one way or another funding is needed, unless you're comfortable with making someone read through kilobytes of drivel and spam in their free (or perhaps not so free) time.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    I'm sure if you stopped paying the street sweepers, you'd find out that a lot of them don't care about sanitation, and the rest can't pick up the burden. That's why they get paid. Even then, I'd rather have one of those motivated by cleanliness service my area. Just the same way, I'll choose a forum that's not monetized. I don't see how that sentence means that funding is needed. Plenty of forums exist with community moderation. Whether the person doing the work is compensated in respect and social connections, or money, doesn't really make a difference to me.

Bluecobra 4y ago

I always thought that Something Awful’s $10 paywall was pretty effective. If you’re an asshole and break the the rules, you’re out $10 and have to pay again. If you’re a big enough asshole, then you get permabanned. You’ll hear a lot of people complain about it and never register over the $10. I paid my $10 once almost 20 years ago and never got banned. That was the best $10 I have ever spent.

mountainb 4y ago
You're deeply confused if you think SA is/was not essentially defined by some of the most capriciously cruel people online. The founder just shot himself after leaving behind a wrecked family with multiple ex-wives, abandoned children, and DV convictions. FYAD, Helldump, etc. really define the spirit of SA, and it's also a precise counterexample to your argument about paywalls being a good thing.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  Metafilter (used to?) charge $5 in the same vein. That Lowtax was a piece of shit says nothing about his effectiveness in separating assholes from their money. The system works.