[hayst4ck]

That is the day I will quit reddit and never look back. 6 months ago I rarely used old.reddit.com, but now I run into more and more dark patterns all the time. They tried to TikTok my feed and it was an awful experience. I frequently default to it now instead of using it only when I get sick of the dark patterns.

Reddit got popular because Digg screwed up their comment threading. It's sad to see reddit is starting to make anti-user mistakes like digg. Maybe they think they can force it because there isn't a competent competitor.

The problem with all of these sites is they start to service the lowest common denominator in the name of next quarters profits. As their websites become more hostile to the educated, the quality of content drops and profit goes up, but the golden goose is slowly being strangled.

Reddit was fantastic around the time of digg because the average user appeared to be college educated or greater. Celebrities like Randall Monroe were submitting high quality content. It was common for a literal expert to write a well thought out post. Now it's an "Americas funniest home videos" feed of fart jokes with your liberal aunt and conservative uncle having an argument in the background.

It seems so clear to me that billionaires mean we can't have nice things. Twitter and Reddit both promoted a "truth to power" free speech ideology, and now billionaires are coercing these companies into becoming cess pits that reflect the worst parts of humanity. Power doesn't like to be threatened so they will destroy the weapon.

I still can't decide if these companies are being destroyed because they promote a "no more billionaires" ideology, or if it is simply capitalistic greed and the search for next quarters profits.

[stametseater]

> The problem with all of these sites is they start to service the lowest common denominator in the name of next quarters profits. [...] It seems so clear to me that billionaires mean we can't have nice things"

The pressure to increase quarterly profits to the detriment of the long-term emerges from the very nature of short-term investment, particularly as facilitated by stock exchanges. Eliminating billionaires would not eliminate this dynamic.

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, Reddit is not even part of a publicly listed company that has investor pressure to meet quarterly numbers, it is privately owned by the Newhouse family. People just like having more money than less money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications

[Aloha]

I think reddit is majority owned by Reddit employees.

[lotsofpulp]

As of Jul 2015, per Wired article:

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/wired-conde-nast-reddit/

>Advance Publications, is Reddit's majority shareholder

[7373737373]

The lack of ownership transparency is an absolute failure. Reddit should not have been for profit anyway

[ROTMetro]

The entire Internet at the 'fantastic' time of Reddit was very much tilted towards the elite class that could 1. Afford an expensive computer or phone (or have access from University) 2. Afford Internet (and for an added bump of exclusivity add mobile Internet) (or have access from University) 3. Have the time/inclination to put lots of energy into CREATING Internet content (via either a hobby site, or composing well thought out posts). What you are complaining about is the quality of a restaurant that has gone from an exclusive new spot you discovered to a Chili's franchise. (Phil's Fish Market?).

What everyone on Hacker News seems to long for is an Internet limited to 'that class' of people. They complain about billionaires and advertising, but maybe they should take a broader look at what they are really longing for.

[hayst4ck]

> What everyone on Hacker News seems to long for is an Internet limited to 'that class' of people.

Yep, that is exactly what I want. I want to be around and interact with other educated people who act in good faith and I don't want to be around uneducated people who act in bad faith or can't see or aren't open to the contradictions in their own ideas.

Eternal September is the name of this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News

  Graham stated he hopes to avoid the Eternal September 
  that results in the general decline of intelligent 
  discourse within a community.

http://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html

  The good things in a community site come from people more 
  than technology; it's mainly in the prevention of bad 
  things that technology comes into play. Technology 
  certainly can enhance discussion. Nested comments do, for 
  example. But I'd rather use a site with primitive 
  features and smart, nice users than a more advanced one 
  whose users were idiots or trolls.

[maeil]

Why are you phrasing things as if "educated" and "good faith" are related?

> I don't want to be around uneducated people who act in bad faith

Are you fine with being around educated people who act in bad faith? Those generally cause much more damage.

[hayst4ck]

In the game of prisoners dilemma, I want to be around people who practice the winning strategy.

A game to demonstrate why that is important: https://ncase.me/trust/

If you cooperate when others defect, you promote defection as a strategy.

If you defect when others cooperate, you undermine cooperation as a winning strategy.

So a community that shut down defectors and cooperates by default creates a community based around cooperation -- a high trust community.

Bad faith is another word for defection. It is hard to understand the game you are playing or see the consequences of your actions without education.

[Eisenstein]

Sure, having a group of people who are of the same general education, sensibilities, and class is desirable.

When people who are only in the same space due to shared interests and experiences become too inclusive then that gets diluted and they are left being around a lot of people who are just a lot of people. No one likes that except extroverts and attention seekers.

Trying to shame us for pining for the days of educated and interesting content made by people we relate to for reasons that are not tied to monetizing everything (because, well, we don't need it) is silly, because by pretending you think that is wrong means you are either short-sighted or bitter.

This is not to say that exclusivity is desirable, but to say that communities exist for a reason and being nostalgic about losing a healthy one does not make you a bad person.

[primax]

Unapologetically yes, this is what I want.

You can call it classist all you want but I want the ivory tower, not the swamp.

[mandmandam]

I think that's pretty unfair.

I don't give a toss if someone has an expensive device or university internet, and I resent the implication that only "an elite class" can compose a well thought out post.

The fact is, billionaires pay people to keep the status quo. Those people hire other people - to program bots, to hire PR goons, to spend millions or even billions on swaying vulnerable minds with echo-chamber media drones -- all to warp discussion online and IRL.

Tobacco companies did it, fossil fuel companies did it, and you can be certain tech companies and governments are doing it too.

You're discounting all of that, and then calling people classist for wanting good-faith discussion. Uncool.