3 ms·

Those saying that StackOverflow became toxic are absolutely correct. But we should not let that be it's legacy. It is IMO still today one of the greatest achiev

Those saying that StackOverflow became toxic are absolutely correct. But we should not let that be it's legacy. It is IMO still today one of the greatest achievements in terms of open data on the internet. And it's impact on making programming accessible to a large audience cannot be understated.

gfhifd42 10mo ago
[flagged]
- Alex2037 10mo ago
  what the fuck are you talking about? SO, remarkably, did not get enshittified.
  - hahn-kev 10mo ago
    Yeah I agree, it did fail, but it's not worse because the people running it were trying to ring money out of it's users. Maybe they did take their eye off the ball trying to make it something else though
  - casey2 10mo ago
    Probably about https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336526/stack-overflow-is-doing-me-ongoing-harm-its-time-to-fix-it https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336526/stack-overfl... and the ensuing shitstorm
    - gfhifd42 10mo ago
      Nah. Farther back in time and psychologically deeper. Its in my, very short, comment history. They told their community their motivation was to combat the selfish monetization of digital sharecroppers and then they monetized their digital sharecroppers. They are frauds and eventually frauds are exposed and they exposed themselves for $1.8billion. And SO it collapsed. But thanks for speaking for me. Albeit incorrectly, ironically.
      - stingraycharles 10mo ago
        It would help if you provide actual arguments to support your claims that SO was enshittified due to monetization efforts. The selling of SO itself is no evidence that they’re actually making the experience worse. You’re making bold claims of them being frauds, selling out the community, etc but provide nothing to support these claims.
  - zahlman 10mo ago
    They're trying really hard now. Constant attempts to introduce half-baked AI features that the meta community doesn't want. Posts from staff (i.e., actual employees of Stack Exchange, Inc.; not the unpaid moderators) on the meta site rarely if ever get a positive score in the last few years.

gfhifd42 10mo ago

[flagged]

Alex2037 10mo ago
what the fuck are you talking about? SO, remarkably, did not get enshittified.
- hahn-kev 10mo ago
  Yeah I agree, it did fail, but it's not worse because the people running it were trying to ring money out of it's users. Maybe they did take their eye off the ball trying to make it something else though
- casey2 10mo ago
  Probably about https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336526/stack-overflow-is-doing-me-ongoing-harm-its-time-to-fix-it https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336526/stack-overfl... and the ensuing shitstorm
  - gfhifd42 10mo ago
    Nah. Farther back in time and psychologically deeper. Its in my, very short, comment history. They told their community their motivation was to combat the selfish monetization of digital sharecroppers and then they monetized their digital sharecroppers. They are frauds and eventually frauds are exposed and they exposed themselves for $1.8billion. And SO it collapsed. But thanks for speaking for me. Albeit incorrectly, ironically.
    - stingraycharles 10mo ago
      It would help if you provide actual arguments to support your claims that SO was enshittified due to monetization efforts. The selling of SO itself is no evidence that they’re actually making the experience worse. You’re making bold claims of them being frauds, selling out the community, etc but provide nothing to support these claims.
- zahlman 10mo ago
  They're trying really hard now. Constant attempts to introduce half-baked AI features that the meta community doesn't want. Posts from staff (i.e., actual employees of Stack Exchange, Inc.; not the unpaid moderators) on the meta site rarely if ever get a positive score in the last few years.