All of us humans are fundamentally racist, spammy, and have some form of hate in us. Depending on the state of society, it can suppress or bring it out. Anonymous boards like this bring out the worst in all of us.
Just as the current administration has catered to our bigoted, racist selves. Anonymous boards have more or less the same effect.
The website has been active for an hour and I'm already seeing some of that. It always turns into 4chan.
Seems legit.
“Could not send the report. Please try again.”
It seems pretty clear to me no one that cares is on the other end of this.
"I didn't say they are ... just some set of words that the creator doesn't personally approve of."
"And what are those words? Post them here."
"I don't have the list of word that are forbidden, only the creator does, so ask him."
You say "I asked you to post the word that you were not allowed to post, not a list of words that are forbidden on the site" but that is mistaken ... see the above context.
"For some reason, you don't want to post your comment or the words here."
I do have reasons not to accede to your demands, and I won't respond further to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I run into false positives on like every third post I try to make
Likes are not one dimensional. Likes flow from one person to another. If you like someones posts, you're more likely to enjoy the things they like. A network of endorsement emerges and the subgroups can become clear.
If you've got this space where dozens or hundreds of people all have a high overlap of favorable content, but there's this one turd who comes in and downvotes everything, always... he's not just a little different, and he's not assimilating. He's trying to sabotage. If this was visible to a moderator, that moderator could decide he doesn't belong to the group. I don't advocate that he no longer be able to view the content, but maybe his votes just stop counting. Maybe he's no longer able to post content of his own (would be up to the moderator, I think, perhaps his content was always good enough, but his voting is counterproductive).
I think that on places like reddit they avoided this functionality because it would give moderators too much control over their communities, and outsiders would be unable to come in and eventually take over and force the original group out. Being admins, they could of course have done this anyway, but it would require them to be heavy-handed and obvious.
Moderators clearly work but it's a shame it relies on single people doing a good thing. It's a shame the moderation can't be done by everyone all the time, unconsciously.
> Start being FREE
Love the concept, let’s go one step further. No publishing at all. Only you can see what you wrote. No need to connect to anything, even if it’s “pure”.
There are quite a lot of message boards and imageboards, large and small, which check the same boxes. Many of them have not gotten enough traction to catch the attention of the mainstream (e.g. lainchan), and have a distinct vibe.
I think that as soon as your userbase expands into a representative sample of the Internet user population, your platform's culture will become increasingly similar (i.e. "average out") to the largest platforms, e.g. 4chan.
I've wanted to try something like a Hacker News where your homepage shows a random smattering of posts where the probability you'll see any particular one depends on its number of likes.
In other words, rather than having a firehose of "new" posts from which a few are elevated to the home page (masses), give everyone a dynamic home page which is mostly items that have been liked by many, but includes a mix of some that haven't made that threshold yet. Maybe instead of pure likes it could be a ratio of likes to views.
But the point is some way to engage everyone in the selection of what makes the homepage. It could even be as simple as "keep HN as is, but include 5 posts randomly chosen from recent submissions and tag them as such."
Dang, has anything like this been considered?
Serious question is how often would you tolerate if those randomly displayed posts are absolutely out of your interests? Would you click or skip? Plenty of fish (Canadian-based dating site), programmed by Markus Frind, had a function: during onboarding you could choose types of people you think you prefer (e.g. brunette/blond etc.) and if you haven’t clicked later on them, algo had started to show different results…
FWIW, I wasn’t suggesting pure randomness though, it’s more like probabilistic randomness. Rather than a binary threshold a post must pass to make the homepage that divides the community into curators and consumers, this would show you posts with a degree of randomness with a probability proportional to the likes it’s garnered.
Btw, I’m not sure what you meant by randomness is an underdog? Are you implying it’s a nice goal but it rarely works out in practice, perhaps because people actually do fall into natural curator / consumer buckets?
That's a long way of agreeing with you that there is positive in the duration bias of HackerNews and other sites.
Of course anything can be hijacked, and metrics proverbially tend towards becoming targets (and hence a dumb arms race), but the general concept of the value of curation is sound.
It's called an archive, and it has its own uses for researchers, especially historians.
My goal isn’t to randomize the homepage or flatten quality, but to involve a broader swath of users in the curation process. It’s currently dominated by the few who browse “new”, essentially a self-selected minority of curators.
Concretely, I was imagining something like: * Every new post is shown to a small % of users as part of their regular homepage (not in a “new” tab they’d have to seek out). * Posts that get engagement from that slice are shown to more users, and so on — a gradual ramp-up based on actual interest rather than early-bird luck.
So it’s not removing filtering; it’s just moving from a binary gate (past the goalpost = homepage) to a more continuous, probabilistic exposure curve.
Curation still happens, but more people get to participate in it, and the system becomes more robust to time-of-day luck or early vote pile-ons.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to clarify that I’m not against filtering -- just having a thought experiment about how we might make it more adaptive and inclusive.
Does that clarify my point? Any thoughts? I appreciate your engagement!
Someone else said, let's go a step further and not post at all. You know what, YES. We have X, we have Facebook, we have many tools where you can create an account with any random email address, with any random name, and say anything you want. Let's leave behind the two decades of public social and go back to the real world e.g maybe there's a world in which you own what you say, its there forever and you have to be thoughtful before you say it, but we also put it in an appropriate place, in a category of communication that makes sense. Blogging was way better than microblogging, but obviously opening the door to everyone made social media far more viral and addictive. Adding pictures and video made it even more viral and addictive. It would just be nice to go back to something a bit more real, something that's not going to be horribly abused and it feels like part of that might mean, less public social.
And yet those same repercussions are the reason why social media is full of inoffensive slop. No one wants be the one who get fired for leaking their employer's unethical practices, after all.
Pseudonymity is not enough, sadly. Given enough time, you'll leak enough data points to be identified.
> Let's leave behind the two decades of public social and go back to the real world
The idea that the "internet" and the "real world" are separate has been outdated for a long time.
Perhaps the more fake and curated the internet becomes, the more people will act out when given the chance?
rododecba•4h ago
No profiles, usernames, or followers
No likes, trending topics, or algorithms
No ads, no data collection
Just anonymous thoughts from people around the world. Curious to see how it evolves and what kind of conversations happen when metrics are removed.
roscas•4h ago
colesantiago•3h ago
Unless you use busybox or an esoteric OS to browse the web, almost every browser or OS (macOS, Linux, Windows) will ping to Google or some other bad spyware website.
Hoodedcrow•3h ago
rododecba•2h ago
ranger_danger•3h ago
being a haven for sharing very illegal content is probably how it's going to evolve... unfortunately
PaulHoule•3h ago
rododecba•2h ago
majorchord•2h ago
jibal•2h ago
You talk about evolution ... that's change over time. How it evolves is how you decide to change it.
riidom•3h ago
ranger_danger•3h ago
textadventure•2h ago
If you don't care about breaking design and stuff looking the way its supposed to, I guess the extension is fine but I rather use something like Stylus where you can use people's custom designed stylesheets for most known sites.
ranger_danger•2h ago
krapp•3h ago
I've seen a ton of projects like this. It will get deluged with spam and shitposts and people will stop caring once the novelty wears off and leave once it becomes a cesspool. Probably for 4chan which at least has a culture and established userbase. And porn.
jibal•2h ago
Also no freedom, with all your content restrictions.
petralithic•2h ago
I suppose you'd want to allow people to self select based on topics, and then, well, you essentially get Reddit.
atoav•2h ago
Freedom in reality isn't just a thing that you increase by reducing the rules. There comes a point where less rules result in less freedom. So it is always a balancing act between your freedom to do X and others freedom to not have to be subjected to X. Example: Giving up the freedom being able to murder random people is a little price to pay, if it means reducing the risk to be murdered yourself – especially since decent people wouldn't have the actionable urge to murder each other anyways. If you're a murderer however that may reduce your freedom in ways you dislike. But then, maybe, your freedom shouldn't matter as much.
Maybe I would care more about that specific idea of active freedom if I routinely wittnessed a real repression of any idea that isn't just the mean bullshit of egocentrics who have lost all touch with humanity and just want to see the world burn.
jibal•2h ago
rododecba•2h ago
jibal•2h ago
There's nothing about your site that grants me the sort of freedoms I want, including the freedom to locate useful content.
rododecba•2h ago
jibal•2h ago
buynlarge•1h ago
mindcrime•2h ago
That is trivially disproven by observing that massive numbers of people use Twitter, Facebook, etc.
jibal•2h ago
incone123•2h ago
mattigames•2h ago
politelemon•2h ago
rododecba•2h ago
jandrese•2h ago
guerrilla•1h ago
cxr•2h ago
neilv•1h ago
It currently leaks cross-site user tracking information to Google (www.gstatic.com).
listic•36m ago