3 ms·
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a kinda-social-network-ish-in-the-broadest-possible-definition attached. HN actually is a social network.
by oncallthrow 1y ago
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a kinda-social-network-ish-in-the-broadest-possible-definition attached.
HN actually is a social network.
- chubot 1y agoI don’t think its a social network — it’s content-focused, not person-focused You upvote stories on Hacker News and Reddit, as opposed to following people
- Imustaskforhelp 1y agoYes but I feel like HN does have some lore from time to time as well. I had seen a recent comment where the commenter shares his personal experience with the author and how they helped him in a stackoverflow question and how it led to their startup and saved their asses. Oh yeah just remembered, it was nadernx (sorry if the name wasn't right), and people in the thread were asking if it saved their asses or what they did and they said that they donated to patreon Like, its not following exactly per se but it was a discussion outside of the post itself which was about python. And it was great. I feel like this could be an example for the parent comment as well as how I personally feel like HN is more social networky than say wikipedia but not at twitter or trad social media level I guess.
- akerl_ 1y agoIt's wild to see two people in a row, one that's saying Wikipedia isn't a social network and then that HN/Reddit aren't. Maybe we should all stop trying to narrowly class what's allowed to be a social network?
- squigz 1y agoI think a more precise definition of social network would be nice, actually, considering how much hubbub is being made about them.
- antod 1y agoWhen the term first came about, it was mainly used to contrast with what was around earlier. "Earlier" could be anything from Usenet to forums etc that were based around topics. Your view of content was based around the topics you selected. You followed topics. A social network was where you connected with other people, and your view of content was based around who those people were and their activity. You followed people not topics. That's definition I'm sticking to, and why I don't regard reddit or HN as a social network. Although on HN doesn't really have topic following functionality, you just select topics on the fly.
- _carbyau_ 1y agoPlease convince the Australian government of this. Currently they are trying to "ban" social media for under 16s. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/soci... "Services including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube meet many of the conditions the legislation uses to define an ‘age-restricted social media platform’. [snip...blah blah] Over the coming weeks, eSafety will have more to say about the platforms it considers must comply with the minimum age obligations." So they are going to start with the big obvious ones and then keep trying to follow the trail of where teens flee to online. 'Tis a silly thing.
- shakna 1y ago4chan apparently won't classify, because its implementing an age gate. Its not an age-restricted social media platform, under the legislation, because its introducing age restrictions on its social media platform. I just...