5 ms·

Should we plan for a life after HN? There is no need to wait for such an event. In my opinion what makes this site unique is how it is run rather than the tec

Should we plan for a life after HN? There is no need to wait for such an event. In my opinion what makes this site unique is how it is run rather than the tech. One could make note(s) of how Daniel manages this site and try their hand at mimicking the patterns on existing sites. People could attempt to replicate something close to his methodology, guidelines and levels of engagement on their own self hosted Postmill, Mastodon, Forums, Chat sites, etc... In my opinion there is no harm in having multiple great sites.

arethuza 3y ago
"People could attempt to replicate something close to his methodology, guidelines and levels of engagement" I wonder how close are we to getting an AI to do this kind of work? Pretty far I would guess?
- xena 3y ago
  Managing a community requires the uncountable efforts of the human soul. As of the current date, large language models do not possess one.
  - pjlegato 3y ago
    That's rather eloquently romantic, but doesn't actually seem to mean anything beyond "it requires some ineffable quality of vague goodness that just FEELS right to me, I know it when I see it." What can be done besides "emotional feedback subjective gut check on how it makes me feel" when we propose to analyze the scenario?
closeparen 3y ago
Based on the commentariat’s enthusiasm for Section 230 reform then, the community wills its own destruction.
- bookofjoe 3y ago
  word of the day: commentariat
Loughla 3y ago
Calling up Dang actually points out the one major weakness of this site from the outside. I don't know what his succession plan looks like, but if he gets hit by a bus, this site could change dramatically (for the worse) and almost immediately. When one person is your linchpin, you have one major, and guaranteed source of failures unless you take steps to mitigate. So it would be interesting to know what kind of succession plan there is, I guess.
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  Calling up Dang actually points out the one major weakness of this site Semi-related fun side note: In my former workplace a coworker coined the term "Single point of success" after management said he was being negative by calling things a single point of failure. Such bottlenecks can't be solved by one person. It takes a village. That's why I suggest everyone here could take notes and at least try to do the same things on their own sites. We can't change the big platforms but those here that tinker offering up their own time and discipline to host small communities could try to make the internet a slightly better place. I've tried my hand at this and burnt out after a decade. That's why I appreciate this site as I can just be a participant. [Edit] Based on dang's comment there are other moderators and that makes sense given he would have to sleep at some point, otherwise people would be saying "Mods are asleep" and the chaos would ensue.
  - pjlegato 3y ago
    This problem has recurred throughout history. The issue with the "study this person who does it well, take notes, it takes a village!" approach is that that quicky ossifies into a bureaucratic morass of petty tyrants who don't actually understand (or care about) the principles behind whatever that person did. They instead engage in endless rules lawyering about technical minutiae. Some do it simply to feel powerful; others genuinely feel that rules lawyering is helpful. This becomes self-amplifying as those who actually care about the underlying principles and themes, as opposed to petty legalism, tend to leave the project permanently and go elsewhere. Meanwhile, those who care about and prioritize bureaucratic bickering are attracted to the project, eventually attain a larger share of the powerful positions, and build more of the same. See the evolution of Wikipedia for a great example of this process in action.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
[flagged]
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Because he's consistent and has a real nose for actual low-quality posts. Plus the massive amount of moderation we don't see. Also the whole thing where he's a real person you can meet, not a "community standards team".

arethuza 3y ago

"People could attempt to replicate something close to his methodology, guidelines and levels of engagement" I wonder how close are we to getting an AI to do this kind of work? Pretty far I would guess?

xena 3y ago
Managing a community requires the uncountable efforts of the human soul. As of the current date, large language models do not possess one.
- pjlegato 3y ago
  That's rather eloquently romantic, but doesn't actually seem to mean anything beyond "it requires some ineffable quality of vague goodness that just FEELS right to me, I know it when I see it." What can be done besides "emotional feedback subjective gut check on how it makes me feel" when we propose to analyze the scenario?

closeparen 3y ago

Based on the commentariat’s enthusiasm for Section 230 reform then, the community wills its own destruction.

bookofjoe 3y ago
word of the day: commentariat

Loughla 3y ago

Calling up Dang actually points out the one major weakness of this site from the outside. I don't know what his succession plan looks like, but if he gets hit by a bus, this site could change dramatically (for the worse) and almost immediately. When one person is your linchpin, you have one major, and guaranteed source of failures unless you take steps to mitigate. So it would be interesting to know what kind of succession plan there is, I guess.

LinuxBender 3y ago
Calling up Dang actually points out the one major weakness of this site Semi-related fun side note: In my former workplace a coworker coined the term "Single point of success" after management said he was being negative by calling things a single point of failure. Such bottlenecks can't be solved by one person. It takes a village. That's why I suggest everyone here could take notes and at least try to do the same things on their own sites. We can't change the big platforms but those here that tinker offering up their own time and discipline to host small communities could try to make the internet a slightly better place. I've tried my hand at this and burnt out after a decade. That's why I appreciate this site as I can just be a participant. [Edit] Based on dang's comment there are other moderators and that makes sense given he would have to sleep at some point, otherwise people would be saying "Mods are asleep" and the chaos would ensue.
- pjlegato 3y ago
  This problem has recurred throughout history. The issue with the "study this person who does it well, take notes, it takes a village!" approach is that that quicky ossifies into a bureaucratic morass of petty tyrants who don't actually understand (or care about) the principles behind whatever that person did. They instead engage in endless rules lawyering about technical minutiae. Some do it simply to feel powerful; others genuinely feel that rules lawyering is helpful. This becomes self-amplifying as those who actually care about the underlying principles and themes, as opposed to petty legalism, tend to leave the project permanently and go elsewhere. Meanwhile, those who care about and prioritize bureaucratic bickering are attracted to the project, eventually attain a larger share of the powerful positions, and build more of the same. See the evolution of Wikipedia for a great example of this process in action.

Der_Einzige 3y ago

[flagged]

rpmisms 3y ago
Because he's consistent and has a real nose for actual low-quality posts. Plus the massive amount of moderation we don't see. Also the whole thing where he's a real person you can meet, not a "community standards team".