3 ms·

Most of the content on the good old Internet is made by people who don’t expect any money for it. This comment for example.

mrtksn 3y ago
That's true but it wasn't a static situation. As it evolved, new cool things came because VCs poured money in it. With Web 1.0 people were sponsored by their parents or institutions and they created the early tools and content. They were not personally looking to profit from it. However early VCs were pouring money into infrastructure or bets, so the thing was getting professional and serious, so can evolve. The most demanded content was content created prior-web, and that content was shared freely(the mp3 and divx era) on platforms created by people who were looking for clout and not necessarily monetary compensation. With Web 2.0 the content was created by people for free but the platforms were completely VC paid. In this stage everything become professional and as it matured we ended up in this horrible state. Arguably, HN is a reminiscent of the early stages of Web 2.0 and the place has good quality because it's paid by VC who expect to have reach(to the talent and market). IMHO HN is possible because it's not optimised to it's full monetary potential.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  HN could easily be run as a classic forum. The VC money just makes it possible to have one (?) FTE which makes it alot simpler to not mess up concessions when admins get tired. But ye it is suprising that Ycomb don't want to mess it up. Someone somewhere has good judgement against short term profits for long term?
- ShroudedNight 3y ago
  > HN is possible because it's not optimised to it's full monetary potential. This sounds eerily similar to congestion-based breakdown in data networks, or the impossibility of a 100% efficient windmill. If you squeeze too hard, you end up with ~nothing.

3 ms·

Most of the content on the good old Internet is made by people who don’t expect any money for it. This comment for example.

by adrianN 3y ago

mrtksn 3y ago
That's true but it wasn't a static situation. As it evolved, new cool things came because VCs poured money in it. With Web 1.0 people were sponsored by their parents or institutions and they created the early tools and content. They were not personally looking to profit from it. However early VCs were pouring money into infrastructure or bets, so the thing was getting professional and serious, so can evolve. The most demanded content was content created prior-web, and that content was shared freely(the mp3 and divx era) on platforms created by people who were looking for clout and not necessarily monetary compensation. With Web 2.0 the content was created by people for free but the platforms were completely VC paid. In this stage everything become professional and as it matured we ended up in this horrible state. Arguably, HN is a reminiscent of the early stages of Web 2.0 and the place has good quality because it's paid by VC who expect to have reach(to the talent and market). IMHO HN is possible because it's not optimised to it's full monetary potential.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  HN could easily be run as a classic forum. The VC money just makes it possible to have one (?) FTE which makes it alot simpler to not mess up concessions when admins get tired. But ye it is suprising that Ycomb don't want to mess it up. Someone somewhere has good judgement against short term profits for long term?
- ShroudedNight 3y ago
  > HN is possible because it's not optimised to it's full monetary potential. This sounds eerily similar to congestion-based breakdown in data networks, or the impossibility of a 100% efficient windmill. If you squeeze too hard, you end up with ~nothing.