3 ms·

Well, there are fundamentally 2 problems here: * someone needs to pay for it * whoever is doing and managing that can turn bad and want more. How do you solv

by ilyt 3y ago

Well, there are fundamentally 2 problems here: * someone needs to pay for it * whoever is doing and managing that can turn bad and want more. How do you solve that to be immune to the reddit/stackoverflow disruption ? Even if it could be covered by donations it there is still problem of any inevitable management of it deciding to push it in direction different than community wishes. > We are holding this discussion on a classic, centralized, web1.0 forum which - from my vantage point - is one of the most valuable and enriching forums currently online. Not web 1.0. Usenet and mailing lists(mostly) died for that, as did many "traditional" forums. > We know this because we're already doing it right here. Ok, now look up who is paying for that.

jjav 3y ago
> someone needs to pay for it This is centralized thinking. In a decentralized open protocol system, everyone pays for their own way, but it's very cheap at an individual level. There's no central "it". > Not web 1.0. Usenet and mailing lists(mostly) died for that, as did many "traditional" forums. I'm on several email groups where I've been a participant since the very early 90s. Every so often there's the "oh have you seen this new shiny thing, let's move to that!" Every single one of those new shinies have disappeared, but the email group lives on. Why? Because email is 100% decentralized, nobody owns it, there's nothing to own. It's an open protocol. So it lives on forever. Also, I still read Usenet on most days, just like I've been doing since the late 80s. It's alive (if not very active) because nobody owns it. I wish we could collectively learn these lessons. Centralized systems cannot exist for very long.
- ilyt 3y ago
  > This is centralized thinking. In a decentralized open protocol system, everyone pays for their own way, but it's very cheap at an individual level. There's no central "it" It is if you want to have central page for people to visit. Someone needs to pay for hosting that else you will have no users if everyone needs to host their bit > I'm on several email groups where I've been a participant since the very early 90s. Every so often there's the "oh have you seen this new shiny thing, let's move to that!" ...do you know how mailing lists work ? It's a central server that distributes it to the members. Pretty light one, sure, but it is still something someone have to host and manage. There is no "distributed mailing list" > Also, I still read Usenet on most days, just like I've been doing since the late 80s. It's alive (if not very active) because nobody owns it. Central servers managed by people again. Yeah they are federated but still rely on a bunch of institutions to throw some servers at it.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > It is if you want to have central page for people to visit. There is no "central page" for Usenet. > ...do you know how mailing lists work ? HN isn't the place for this kind of discussion style. If you insist on asking, I have been running email servers personally and professionally for 33 years now and have worked in enterprise tech companies specializing in email. I have a resonably good idea of how email works. > > Usenet > Central servers managed by people again. No. You can run your own Usenet node just as you can be your own email server. That's why these protocols are fully decentralized. You also can rely on someone else's Usenet server or email server, but that's your choice to make if you wish. You don't have to do that to participate in the ecosystem. That's the strength of decentralization.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      >> ...do you know how mailing lists work ? >HN isn't the place for this kind of discussion style. If you insist on asking, I have been running email servers personally and professionally for 33 years now and have worked in enterprise tech companies specializing in email. I have a resonably good idea of how email works. I asked how you think MAILING LISTS work, not how email works. And you obviously have no idea how MAILING LISTS work
- vGPU 3y ago
  What exactly are you still reading on usenet? I’ve never been able to find anything that isn’t just spam.
olivierduval 3y ago
>>> management of it deciding to push it in direction different than community wishes THAT is a fundamental and interesting (almost philosophical) question: should a forum/website/media FOLLOW "community wishes" (democracy-style) or FOLLOW a vision even without traction (benevolent or bureaucratic dictatorship style) ??? BOTH are good AND bad in a way or another... * FOLLOWING COMMUNITY WISHES will ensure more and more people, but lower average quality (bazaar style) because everybody will talk about what interest him in the end... so hard to keep a focus. Moreover, community wishes is prone to forum "take over" by subgroups (think for example "extreme right" - for whatever that means, or hackers, or...) * CHARTER will ensure that a forum has a single "topic" (even a niche) but the community won't grow as much, it need strong moderation, people will regularily clash/disagree and leave about the rules... but quality will be higher (more focused and specialized)
- ilyt 3y ago
  Frankly I think people having a little bit of fight in the comments isn't even something moderators should bother with, HN/reddit like format of conversation makes it easy enough to avoid (it was worse for forums when that derailed whole thread) and it mostly gets downvoted to the bottom anyway. But there needs to be some push for a certain direction for the social space. Just maybe not "dictator for life" as is on pretty much every subreddit. I wonder if some kind of elected "democracy", with people voting having their vote weight tweaked by "contribution level" to the community. Still probably prone to some biases but at the very least not in the "lowest common denominator" direction.

by ilyt 3y ago

jjav 3y ago

> someone needs to pay for it This is centralized thinking. In a decentralized open protocol system, everyone pays for their own way, but it's very cheap at an individual level. There's no central "it". > Not web 1.0. Usenet and mailing lists(mostly) died for that, as did many "traditional" forums. I'm on several email groups where I've been a participant since the very early 90s. Every so often there's the "oh have you seen this new shiny thing, let's move to that!" Every single one of those new shinies have disappeared, but the email group lives on. Why? Because email is 100% decentralized, nobody owns it, there's nothing to own. It's an open protocol. So it lives on forever. Also, I still read Usenet on most days, just like I've been doing since the late 80s. It's alive (if not very active) because nobody owns it. I wish we could collectively learn these lessons. Centralized systems cannot exist for very long.

ilyt 3y ago
> This is centralized thinking. In a decentralized open protocol system, everyone pays for their own way, but it's very cheap at an individual level. There's no central "it" It is if you want to have central page for people to visit. Someone needs to pay for hosting that else you will have no users if everyone needs to host their bit > I'm on several email groups where I've been a participant since the very early 90s. Every so often there's the "oh have you seen this new shiny thing, let's move to that!" ...do you know how mailing lists work ? It's a central server that distributes it to the members. Pretty light one, sure, but it is still something someone have to host and manage. There is no "distributed mailing list" > Also, I still read Usenet on most days, just like I've been doing since the late 80s. It's alive (if not very active) because nobody owns it. Central servers managed by people again. Yeah they are federated but still rely on a bunch of institutions to throw some servers at it.
- jjav 3y ago
  > It is if you want to have central page for people to visit. There is no "central page" for Usenet. > ...do you know how mailing lists work ? HN isn't the place for this kind of discussion style. If you insist on asking, I have been running email servers personally and professionally for 33 years now and have worked in enterprise tech companies specializing in email. I have a resonably good idea of how email works. > > Usenet > Central servers managed by people again. No. You can run your own Usenet node just as you can be your own email server. That's why these protocols are fully decentralized. You also can rely on someone else's Usenet server or email server, but that's your choice to make if you wish. You don't have to do that to participate in the ecosystem. That's the strength of decentralization.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    >> ...do you know how mailing lists work ? >HN isn't the place for this kind of discussion style. If you insist on asking, I have been running email servers personally and professionally for 33 years now and have worked in enterprise tech companies specializing in email. I have a resonably good idea of how email works. I asked how you think MAILING LISTS work, not how email works. And you obviously have no idea how MAILING LISTS work
vGPU 3y ago
What exactly are you still reading on usenet? I’ve never been able to find anything that isn’t just spam.

olivierduval 3y ago

>>> management of it deciding to push it in direction different than community wishes THAT is a fundamental and interesting (almost philosophical) question: should a forum/website/media FOLLOW "community wishes" (democracy-style) or FOLLOW a vision even without traction (benevolent or bureaucratic dictatorship style) ??? BOTH are good AND bad in a way or another... * FOLLOWING COMMUNITY WISHES will ensure more and more people, but lower average quality (bazaar style) because everybody will talk about what interest him in the end... so hard to keep a focus. Moreover, community wishes is prone to forum "take over" by subgroups (think for example "extreme right" - for whatever that means, or hackers, or...) * CHARTER will ensure that a forum has a single "topic" (even a niche) but the community won't grow as much, it need strong moderation, people will regularily clash/disagree and leave about the rules... but quality will be higher (more focused and specialized)

ilyt 3y ago
Frankly I think people having a little bit of fight in the comments isn't even something moderators should bother with, HN/reddit like format of conversation makes it easy enough to avoid (it was worse for forums when that derailed whole thread) and it mostly gets downvoted to the bottom anyway. But there needs to be some push for a certain direction for the social space. Just maybe not "dictator for life" as is on pretty much every subreddit. I wonder if some kind of elected "democracy", with people voting having their vote weight tweaked by "contribution level" to the community. Still probably prone to some biases but at the very least not in the "lowest common denominator" direction.