at this point, there is only 1 way to save reddit, and it's so drastic that they wont do it because the ones who need to do it are too blind or too far away
* fire spez
* promise a clear committed roadmap of mod tools
* promise to review 3rd party API pricing, and delay the current rollout
It's literally the only way that will be accepted by the 1% that keep the site running (read the Ennui engine principle)
Those numbers are usually computed by subreddits going private. More have left old content up but have blocked new posts/comments. Those have not been reflected in your numbers.
I don't know what happened with r/programming (I couldn't find the mod channel), but I just took it private, assuming the other mods just forgot about it.
Then again, it's spez's subreddit, so maybe he wants it public (in which case he can just flip it back).
Could you please update the message to "This subreddit is temporarily private as part of a joint protest to Reddit's recent API changes, which breaks third-party apps and moderation tools, effectively forcing users to use the official Reddit app." to raise awareness for the reason you took it private? That would be really helpful!
Hm, I don't see where I can set that, sadly. I don't see a customizable message when I visit the subreddit incognito, either, just a "this is private".
Given that nobody has reverted the change, I assume they'd just forgotten to do it in the first place.
Relatedly, I tried checking my comment history on reddit now, and most of its missing (out of a few hundreds (or maybe thousands of comments) there's like ... 15 left.
So, my guess is that there's more blowing up with reddit right now than just the blackout.
How is it possible that these companies are still run like an immature dorm room shitshow? Are there no separation of duties? The CEO should not have admin access to anything (the very least for security purposes).
He was correct to do this, because it was funny. Any true longtime forum poster would recognize this. (Conversely, if it wasn't funny, he should've done it differently.)
Although doing Lowtax things may lead to turning into Lowtax, which is probably bad.
I can certainly tell you it's not a serious problem, because it'd be illegal if it was. All serious problems with websites are revenue issues or legal issues.
It wasn't funny, and he didn't make any jokes. He edited "fuck spez" comments to remove spez and substitute other mods.
Fuck r/the_donald - but that's just blatant admin power misuse to deflect criticism. Very topical with all the "fuck u/spez" comments going around these days.
Admin abuse is inherently funny. It's like slapstick. It was funny on SA when the users paid to sign up in the first place, and it can only be more so when they're not even paying customers.
Should've made it a wordfilter though. Those are more participatory.
(You won't take this advice, which is why I've run a large popular internet forum before and you haven't.)
I think you're a very small minority in that opinion, my friend. Perhaps leadership decisions like that are why you refer to your forum in the past tense now?
You will never be able to perfectly tickle everyone's funny bone with a given joke, but most everyone agrees that the role of forums is to offer a funny experience, and a good admin will play a significant role in making that happen. One does not spend their preciously scarce free time on an Internet forum if there is nothing funny about it.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood your definition of hilarity. There was a lot of discussion elsewhere about a specific type of humor. The trolling/random kind of humor.
I completely agree, when he did that is was pretty funny (but a little pathetic he didn't dare to ban these users or this sub, either for money or political reasons).
Users reacted poorly and "shocked" site wide somehow that an admin could exerts admin right and edit database which as a sysadmin made me laugh a lot because I get occasional similar ones from our users when we do admin stuff.
It's not funny when the victim isn't in on the joke and is distressed by it.
(Sure, the victim was (probably) a highly unsympathetic and stupid person. What justification is that? It's schoolyard-bully sociology to attack unsympathetic weirdos. Most bullies grow out of it and live with regrets. But 'spez is a fucking adult! What's he doing lurking in the worst subreddits of (his own) website, searching for prey to gaslight? What's the character of a grown-ass man who does that?)
No, whether the user is sympathetic or not isn't important, and I don't think there's anything noble about punishing users you don't like. It's just a misconception about what's important in internet forums. If you're a random free account you sometimes get nobly sacrificed (via admin abuse) for the entertainment of the masses and thus benefit society as a whole.
Basically, it's PvP. This is pretty obvious from the design; you post and people reply to you, which they mostly use to argue with you. An example of a product designed for people to be nice to each other is Discourse, which isn't much like HN or reddit.
People do have human rights, which is why I said what matters is if it's illegal or not. Putting slanderous posts under their name would be a real issue - if you think this happened go ahead and sue him - but the most common one would be doxxing: posting your IP and personal info from the admin console. Which he's probably got access to.
If you base your social conduct entirely on what's legal and illegal, you'll become a pariah very fast.
Spez is the perfect example of this. His editing of the comments cemented his reputation as corrupt and stupid, and from then on everything he communicated towards the community received a much stronger backlash than it otherwise would have, regardless of how unpopular the decision actually was.
This is confusing "the community" with "overly engaged parts of the community".
Normal reddit users don't know any inside baseball facts about the site. The normal users are those people who post the same basic "women, what's the sexiest sex you ever sexed?" questions on askreddit once a week.
Of course, their site design makes this a problem since it relies on mods, who are specifically that kind of person since they do it for free.
>>I can certainly tell you it's not a serious problem, because it'd be illegal if it was
that seems to be a very poor reasoning. If your honest contention that all things that are a problem are illegal (thus one can assume then also that you 100% agree with all laws on the books as well) seems then we have no societal problems, and the government and laws work perfectly... Thus no need to elections, or changes to those laws.
No, but certainly if you think something is a problem you should lobby to make future instances of it illegal. If you don't, it's basically not worth the time of an admin/CEO to care what you think, because they have so much else going on.
A common theme on social media is that a group of people care about something and want to ban it, but instead of changing the law, instead they self-enforce their pseudo-laws by yelling at people who violate them. Complaining about the mods being an example, another being fanartists who have a ton of rules about "sourcing your art reposts"/not tracing, another being that 2014 period where everyone went around GitHub projects trying to shame the owners for not having a code of conduct.
This might be because they're anarchists and don't want to call the figurative cops, but usually it's because they're a minority and there isn't actually popular support for it.
wow.. I dont even know really were to begin to unpack this.
So you position is that totalitarianism to the extreme is the only way? That everything, every action, every social convention, every interaction between two people should be under the purview of some law or regulation.
I am not a big fan of codes of conduct, as such I damn sure do not want the government creating a law around code of conduct. If some open source project wants to enact a stupid CoC I want the freedom to fork that project and replace with either a CoC free project or a competing one with a different CoC.
government is not empowered, nor should it be empowered to government what social media ban's, or the conduct of developers interacting with each other on a open source project
If you are upset about an interaction between a CEO of a company and a customer of the company, as in this thread, then yes that is the kind of thing we have laws for.
In the other examples there are other levels of "government" that have "regulations" that are more official than nothing that you could lobby. You could get GitHub to change the ToS to require CoC, or Twitter to ban certain kinds of things artists don't like, rather than just be personally mean to other users on the site about it.
Isn't "reddit isn't a real company, it's a dorm room shitshow" supposed to be the appeal of reddit? A 'real company' wouldn't have a free-for-all API to allow third parties to leach their ad revenue.
> A 'real company' wouldn't have a free-for-all API to allow third parties to leach their ad revenue.
Or they might have realised that third parties are crucial to their success (they have the stats, they know what % of traffic, commenters, power users, etc. are using third-party apps) and instead added more constraints around the API, like also serving ads (like Telegram), lower rate limits for unauthenticated users, forcing oauth etc. Instead of going the nuclear path of making any third party downright unviable and thus forcing them to shutdown.
Reddit won't die for the same reason Facebook won't... there's no real viable alternative for the majority of the users.
It might become a bit shitter, it might lose a few users who are a bit more tech savvy or from the "old days of the internet" who'll find themselves fedi or forum based alternatives but the majority will keep getting what they want out of it without a reason to move - most users probably use the official app which is rubbish compared to Apollo etc but is sufficient for them.
I'd love to see this protest actually work but the cynic in me says it won't, or if it does it'll be a slow death as the 1% leave and the content dries up which then pushes away the majority, and it'll be too slow to save it... only then might we see a viable alternative pop up, but I'm sure it won't be any of the Fedi solutions as they just fragment the communities too much even with the instances opening to each other, but we're already seeing Lemmy instances "defederate" from each other
It pains me to say it, but I think you're right. Reddit for most normies is just another app to consume memes but with comments. I don't think Reddit wants to continue focusing on comments and longer form content. The only advantage to them to keep comments is higher pageviews and ads. The niche communities are starting to go back to their own platforms or Discord.
Anecdotally, I've seen more and more comments that remind me of Facebook, a platform I deleted my account for 8 or 9 years ago. I left FB to get away from the brainrot and if Reddit is bringing in more and more of these users, I'd rather go somewhere else.
I've added Reddit.com to my Ublock list and am removing Apollo from my home screen. If Reddit doesn't turn this around, I'll be uninstalling at the end of the month. I don't have high hopes.
I've seen UseNet die, so I'm not so sure. What Reddit does (and UseNet before it) is really niche. There aren't as many people on Reddit as there are on Facebook and Reddit isn't as entangled with people's 'real' life as much as social media is.
You are right with your last sentence, but reddit is anything but niche. It attracts even politicians and other celebrities, albeit typically only for Q&As. Arnold Schwarzenegger and William Shattner post there for fun with their real names, who knows how many post under pseudonyms. The beauty of reddit is that it attracts even non-technical people who share their insight in their domain (usually anonymous, so to be taken with a grain of salt - but it's usually plausible precisely because reddit is so popular).
Reddit has grown significantly the last few years, but it still has only about 50-60 million daily users, compared to Facebook's nearly 2 billion daily users.
Don't get me wrong, I like Reddit. Before it I used Usenet, which died and after Usenet I was active on forums (most of those also seem to be gone now). I really prefer those topic based social media to the other user-based social media. But I've seen enough of them die before.
I loved Usenet before the mixture of web forums and spam killed it... we need something like this again - decentralised platforms without decentralised community.
I'm with you that a site of that critical size probably won't die, not within a decade.
The same was AOL is actually not completely dead. Yahoo! is not dead, Digg isn't either, neither did MySpace. And I'd totally see Tumblr having a full come back to the front of the stage.
Another way to put it could be "dead to us" for any specific value of "us".
AOL and Yahoo had advertising revenues Reddit could only dream of.
As it stands, a huge chunk of Reddit's content is Twitter and Tiktok reposts. Older users like me enjoyed that because I didn't want to sign up for Twitter and TT. The younger app centric users that Reddit is pivoting to probably have Twitter and TT accounts. So what value is Reddit providing?
Everything you describe sounds like a positive outcome for me.
Let reddit turn into a wasteland of pun threads, office references, fake ragebait and wholesome content run by AI repost bots, as long as there's a viable alternative for the 1%.
There are viable alternatives, but the average user simply does not care. And by average user I mean someone who literally doesn't bother to use the official reddit client.
How do you fix the problem for the average user of why the (eg) recipe group on their Lemmy instance is empty, and when/if they do learn that other instances recipe groups are different groups, how they properly follow them all, and why it is their favourite one suddenly disappeared because their instance defed'd from that instance because the other instance also carried trumpsfavouriterecipes?
I get and like the principles of the Fediverse but for the average user it's too fragmented, needs too much effort around discoverability, is confusing and promotes echo chambers in some ways worse than Reddit (in that your instance can simply cut off another instance it doesn't agree with - at least in Reddit you can find another sub all on the same instance that meets your echo chambers. Yes you can change instances but supposing that other instance doesn't carry a group you use heavily?)
IMO Lemmy's growth will halt once the more intrepid average user decides it's too complex, tells all their friends about it and goes back to Reddit.
People keep talking about having the option to take your content and move as though freedom was a prison.
Likewise, the fact that there is a community of instances that have made the choice to have a pleasant space, free of troll farms spewing endless abuse, and are taking that seriously, really seems to have upset a lot of people around here.
You can't get the_donald on Reddit either, because fascists make a room stink like farts, and only people who've been huffing their poopy-smelling breath can't see that. I think what's really upsetting for those of the trollish mindset is that while removing the_donald and other fascist subs was more about keeping the site running smoothly and just getting rid of a headache, the decision to lock out gab and truth.social and anyone else who tolerates it is strictly an aesthetic one; they are no longer outcast because they're a pain in the ass, they're outcast because they suck and the whole community agrees.
I knew in 2016 that it was just the start of a process of smartening, where people get more optics into the nature of the world and the Internet's place in it. Seven years on, The Smartening proceeds apace, finding ways to have nice things, even with armies of chaos and division trying to tell us to be angry, to rage incoherently at our neighbors, doing everything they can to bring bad feelings into our lives.
The platforms are done because there's no more free money for them to play with, and when the big machines that run on that money can't fill up with another funding round, things are already grim and only getting worse. The fediverse is doing alright.
I understood the previous remarks as suggesting problem isn’t strictly defederating the-underscore-Donald. It’s that defederation is an incredibly blunt tool, but one of the few tools available, and so you end up with some pretty obnoxious schisms.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used a Trump related fake example but it could be as simple as cutting off a peer because the mod is a vegan and wants to cut off meat recipes (and cuts off the best and most populated soccer community at the same time)
Has that happened, or is that just a scenario? Cause I'd be very interested to see if vegans actually can cut out meat from mainstream mastodon.
I confess that I'm vegan-adjacent, I eat meat whenever it's put in front of me but my wife is vegan so I never have meat put in front of me and I don't miss it, but if vegans can actually create a major ideological schism in the greater federation over their specific issue, I will see that as a problem and pretty much agree that the fediverse is a fail.
That said, it's a better fail than previous fails, so the way forward is not back to the platforms regardless.
But I think the vegans are going to settle for having the right to exist like everyone else, and there are definitely already lots of radical instances I'm sure. But can they make all of mastodon ban pictures burgers on a grill?
Let's find out, actually. The experiment is already in motion.
Ignoring the specific example used to make my point, my point was how do you avoid the problem? If PopularInstanceA decides to cut off PopularInstanceB for "reasons" you have fragmented a community with users on both instances going to be unhappy... yes they could all move and suddenly MarginalnstanceC becomes PopularInstanceC as it federates both A and B but users will get lost along the way, most will only tolerate this kind of instance changing crap once and even then how do you stop A cutting off C because they are federating B?
Yes I agree it's all just hypothetical but we're relying on the goodwill of probably unpaid enthusiast server owners to keep the Fediverse stable and that feels like a house of cards to me
This is the most bewildering part of every conversation I've had so far about the fediverse, and it always comes down to this idea that because it is difficult, because it is not the easy and well-funded way that has a buyout or a powertrip at the end of it, that it's somehow bound to fail where, well, so far the platforms claim to be succeeding but let's see how they do with the interest rates as they are for another few years.
Which part of Reddit - leave out Twitter, leave out Facebook, leave out Google, leave out everything else because they only make my question harder to answer; Reddit is currently the great white hope of the Platforms. The one that everyone desperately points to as a platform done right, because the alternative - a world without big corporate daddies seeing to our needs and keeping us safe at night because Alexa is listening to us breathe, a world without the possibility of chatting up a VC capitalist doing a startup and cashing out a billionaire in a couple years - is too horrible to contemplate.
So exactly which part of Reddit, with its legions of unpaid labourers and current shenanigans, is not very obviously a house of cards that is just about to collapse right before their IPO coup-de-grace?
Reddit is "relying on the goodwill of [definitely] unpaid enthusiasts," except their goal is not to foster community and offer an alternative to the platforms, their goal is to do their IPO, collect their golden parachutes, and let the whole thing fester like the untreated infection that it is.
I will place my bet on the enthusiast server owners and the willingness of their communities to take collective responsibility to make sure that we do have an actual alternative to this bullshit before I'll ever trust another platform.
And you know, we ought to know better than to question the ability of communities of enthusiasts and weirdoes to actually make something happen without a fucking VC involved. Look at GNU(/Linux), on which the entire world runs. We got this baby, and we won't need YC to make it work. I'm sure there are folks in this forum that won't like that either - if you can't monetize it, it's worthless to them, and that's why our communities keep going up in Private Equity smoke, just like Sears.
Followed some of the links shared here, I fully agree now that the CEO should go. Earlier, he compromised the integrity of people’s speech by editing their posts: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/reddit-edit-post
I can see why they might want someone with the ability to edit posts (removing extreme TOS stuff - racism, hate speech etc). But that's probably not for the CEO and certainly shouldn't be used simply to "troll the trolls"
Also it's baffling to me that the CEO of reddit is a regular user and somehow isn't up in arms about how irritating it is to use the site.
> Deletion seems far superior, do you want people to go around editing out the racism of peoples posts?
The generous argument for would be it preserves any redeeming value in the offending comment. The practical answer is he (EDIT: spez) wanted something to rail against.
I'm not sure that's right. If your website is saying I said something I didn't say then that's an issue. Sure, have the ability to remove or annotate posts that break the rules in some way but to leave a post up saying something other than what the poster wrote seems bad (and possibly even libellous) to me.
Much as Elon Musk has not managed to kill Twitter, despite nationwide, breathless, reporting to that effect, I don’t think that the Reddit situation is anywhere nearly as drastic as people striking would like to believe. Yes, twitter users have fled and given Mastodon a day in the sun, and the site’s constituency has undoubtedly shifted, but its dominance still seems fairly secure.
Reddit is playing with fire, this could all go horribly wrong for them. I just don’t find it likely. Reddit is really, really big. Those 1% add a lot of value to the site but without it the site is still quite valuable. 1% of users can eventually be replaced and it won’t catch fire in the meantime.
The reddit user base is largely unaware of any of this and will forever remain passive users. I’m confident spez took one look at third party app user counts and said, “worth it.” If Reddit does IPO I expect it to become only more popular. Time will tell.
The problem with this approach (not just for Reddit, but for all internet content sites) is that $9.99 is a significant investment when there are other sites providing content for free. The choice the user has to make isn't "Is Reddit worth $9.99?" but more like "Is Reddit better value at $9.99 than some other website at $0.00?", and Reddit is probably never going to win in that process for the majority of people.
It's the same reason why so few people sign up to pay for YouTube or Twitter. Video content is available elsewhere. Whatever the hell Twitter content is can be found just by talking to people.
On the other side so many do pay for Spotify and Netflix because that content is locked down pretty well. You can pirate some things, but it's a pain. Paying is easier.
Reddit seems to think it has a product that has value. Like so many web content hosts before it, it's probably wrong. It probably can't work as a business unless it's showing people adverts. And the problem with that model is that people hate adverts.
Honestly, until users realise that they can't have a content host unless they pay, no sites like Reddit will survive long term.
You'd probably get at most 5% signing up for the paid plan so the price would have to be more than 20x what they get from a free user seeing ads. Could work if they cut down the size of the organ but that has literally never happened
Also would force the platform into a death spiral. 95% of users leaving -> massive reduction in content -> more users leave -> no more content -> reddit is gone.
As much as I wish that to be true I doubt it. A large portion of users will simply scroll through reddit and look at the latest cat videos or social media stunts. You can scrape this content without any contributors at all. All the separate communities that reddit hosts probably contribute very little to their ad revenue.
Is there any good reads wrt the blowback on cost of the API? I've only read that it costs $0.25 per 1000 calls which seems relatively cheap, but I haven't looked into how it affects use cases.
> Apollo made 7 billion requests last month, which would put it at about 1.7 million dollars per month, or 20 million US dollars per year. Even if I only kept subscription users, the average Apollo user uses 344 requests per day, which would cost $2.50 per month, which is over double what the subscription currently costs, so I'd be in the red every month.
> I'm deeply disappointed in this price. Reddit iterated that the price would be A) reasonable and based in reality, and B) they would not operate like Twitter. Twitter's pricing was publicly ridiculed for its obscene price of $42,000 for 50 million tweets. Reddit's is still $12,000. For reference, I pay Imgur (a site similar to Reddit in user base and media) $166 for the same 50 million API calls.
> For Apollo, the average user uses 344 requests daily, or 10.6K monthly. With the proposed API pricing, the average user in Apollo would cost $2.50, which is is 20x higher than a generous estimate of what each users brings Reddit in revenue.
There is more to it than the amount Reddit demands now. One huge issue is that it's a very sudden move.
30 days is not enough time to change apps business models (with existing paying customers in the mix). Additionally it seems reddit made promises in the beginning of this year that they wont monetize API access.
Reddit does not want to find common ground with 3rd party apps and make money with them, it wants them out of the market ASAP.
The issue even extends to non-mobile users that are afraid now that old reddit will be chopped for better monetization etc.
I mean, personally I've been paying for a Premium membership for years now because I know good web communities need user financial support to be sustainable. So I have at least some moral right to a preference in the direction the site goes. I honestly wish they'd just done a bigger Premium beg-a-thon and see if they could meet their revenue needs that way; it's ultimately a much better model.
