Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Ask HN: Reddit alternatives (that aren't Mastodon)
29 points by TylerE on June 5, 2023 | hide | past | favorite | 32 comments
With the upcoming APIocalypse, where are reddit refugees to go?

Hard Requirements:

NOT Mastodon. That's simply a different paradigm. NOT tech only. Wide spectrum discussion. NOT an alt-right hive.

Soft Requirements:

A decent mobile interface, preferably a non-crappy iOS app. Not overtly commercial/meme/crypto oriented



Lemmy is to Reddit what Mastadon is to Twitter


> NOT an alt-right hive.

Lemmy is the only alternative I have seen so far that has learned from the failures of Voat.

But the userbase is tiny, and smaller than even niche subreddits.


Lemmy is openly politically hostile: https://0x0.st/HbDc.jpg

Also there are some people who detest it based on the fact that it is written in Rust.


If you think having slurs filtered is “politically hostile” you and I have a different idea of what political discourse is.


They removed that filter a long time ago, so "never" didn't quite stick. You took a screenshot of an issue from 2020.


Liberalism is an ideology that contradictions are wrong. Conservatism is an ideology that authority is right. These are core axioms that define belief systems.

This manifests itself as liberal spectrum people having to adjust their beliefs with new information, while conservative spectrum people mold new information by their currently existing beliefs. That's pretty black and white, and the truth is much more grey, but if you take this as a model for political conversation, I don't think you'll be disappointed very often.

Someone who thinks their priest is the ultimate arbiter of truth will never be able to come to terms with someone who sees contradictions as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

So it's not that it's politically hostile so much as an enforcement of a core axiom of how truth is arrived at and how disputes are resolved -- in particular that contradictions are wrong. "We aren't going to tolerate conservatism where truth comes from priests and godkings or some ecclesiastic structure" seems fine, if not appealing to me.

Liberalism is a walled garden ideology, and conservatives frequently want to enjoy the garden, despite littering the garden with their efforts to dominate rather than reach consensus.

So "politically hostile" while it sounds like a negative isn't. I mean I am politically hostile towards nazis, rashists, and tankies and don't really want to share a forum with them. American conservatives and "y'all qaeda" in particular are rapidly approaching these ultimately fascist and authoritarian political movements.


Yeah, liberals never stick to dogmatic beliefs. That's why they all insisted that Johnny Depp was the abuser because he's a man.


You don't prevent becoming an "alt-right hive" without that hostility. Toxicity, degeneracy and hate need to be actively opposed by the culture and the system. Neutrality will allow it to simply take root.


Oh no, not degeneracy.

But seriously, that's a giant slippery slope and anyone claiming to be on the left should see that. (Unless you're an authoritarian leftist who's for economic centralization but socially conservative).

Speaking as somebody who remembers when my existence was considered 'degenerate', I'm wary of any attempts to put degeneracy on the same level as hate speech.


[flagged]


Then stop commenting here if you don't want to be challenged. Yes, I did jump on you for using the wrong word because I believe that if you're going to make an argument that you should be able to morally decide what language is permissible that you consider the implications of your language in turn. "Language is important, we must regulate it to keep from hurting people." cannot jive with "How dare you judge me for using the wrong word?!" Either speech is important and must be considered or it's allowed for people to sometimes err in how they express themselves.

Also, for the record because you're someone who probably spends time in places that value standpoint epistomology, I'm a disabled lesbian. You're supposedly acting on my behalf to protect me. I don't think Nazis (actual Nazis, not fundie or Q crazies), TERFS, or bigots are degenerates. I think they're terrible people because they violate a value of mine - that value being "allowing for a diversity of human experience produces positive results for individuals and society", but I don't believe in the concept of degeneracy or in centralized moral authority systems. It's also funny that you're borrowing a term the right used to slam the LGBTQ+ community for so many years and you're surprised somebody had a negative reaction to that. It comes off as very 'rules for thee but not me'.

> There's no slippery slope here, besides the one you're implying leads from social media platforms simply having standards of conduct and decency and banning hate speech to... communism?

I'm a market socialist who's somewhere in the anarchist/syndicalist camp. The tankies and commies are the main group on the left who are on the left but want to stamp out 'degeneracy', yes.

'Decency'. There's another one.

I always find it interesting that people with your point of view tend to treat things like 'decency' and 'degeneracy' as objective facts. Not saying slurs = decency, but not saying swears or not speaking heresy = not decency. Even though those things might also cause emotional distress. So it's not about preventing emotional distress. The difference is that the authorities in these cases believe that insulting someone's innate qualities is unacceptable but insulting someone for their choices is okay, but how much choice does someone born in Iran have about being Muslim? These approaches suggest that whomever is making those calls has figured out the 'one true value system' and if we all just adhere to that system, it'll be sunshine and roses. Just don't question the system, its premises, or its implementation. Which in turn leaves it open for abuse and for the authorities' biases to be baked in - it's interesting to see how lesbophobia is treated when it comes from fundies versus other members of the LGBTQ+ community, for example.


I think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you fail to see that might makes right. You can only win when those with liberal (in the social contract sense) beliefs have might, when liberals can credibly provide consequences for conservative attempts at dominance.

I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system.

Anarchism is a politically immature ideology that is self-contradictory in the same way that communism and libertarianism are. Anarchism has no answer to a foreign invader or a genocidal next door neighbor. Anarchism is a contradictory ideology at a philosophical level. Anarchism denies institutions.

Ukrainians did not get to decide whether they were at war. War was thrust upon them. Trans people don't get to decide whether they are at war with American conservatives or not. American conservatives have already declared that war.

I don't take issue with anti-trans viewpoints being called degenerate. I don't take issue with calling federalist society court packing degenerate. I don't take issue with calling Clarence Thomas degenerate for saying "this is a lynching" in response to sexual abuse allegations against him. I don't take issue with the catholic polity protecting their priests from consequences being called degeneracy. I don't take issue with calling people who force rape victims into giving birth degenerates.

Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself.

This is the paradox of tolerance. "If I do not cooperate, I cannot expect someone to cooperate with me." That's true and seems like quite the paradox.

However the social contract of tolerance says "If someone does not cooperate with me, then I must not cooperate with them."

It's important to understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if you let defection be a winning strategy, you will create more people with a strategy of defection. So if you have a rule of "violence is bad," but someone uses violence against you, is it a "rules for thee but not for me" situation to want to use violence back?

If you have "rules for us," and someone violates them, how do you propose dealing with that?

I would encourage you to play this game and mediate on the consequences of it for your political belief system: https://ncase.me/trust/

> These approaches suggest that whomever is making those calls has figured out the 'one true value system' and if we all just adhere to that system, it'll be sunshine and roses.

I think you believe in speaking truth to power (which is respectable and important), but I think you are mis-applying it.

> how much choice does someone born in Iran have about being Muslim?

How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality?

I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power?

I think you would find Timothy Snyder to be a very interesting speaker who you agree with on a values level, but will alter the way you think about things by questioning the frame through which you analyze things.

His readings of "On Tyranny" is probably a good place to start (this is lesson 10: believe in truth): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0


> I also think you fail to see that might makes right.

No, I disagree. And this type of writing is one reason I'm drawing back from 'progressive' spaces: There's a pernicious moral righteousness, lack of humility, and lack of desire to engage in good faith discussions. It is a red flag for a couple of reasons:

* It gives me the impression that the interest isn't in finding truth or effective tactics: The interest in the discussion is making dissidents fall into line.

* Tactically and strategically, it leads to an ossified movement which can't adapt to changing times or support itself. Cutting off internal dissent is a great way to make sure no improvements are ever made. And if we're talking personal interest and game theory, why would I tie myself to a sinking ship? Even if the ship is mostly correct, it's better to build a mostly correct ship that is less likely to sink.

* Related to number 1: Treating all dissent the same. The black and white kneejerk of assuming everybody who dissents is a right-winger ignorant of the context of these discussions. I've been discussing identity issues and politics online for almost 3 decades. I know where this speech and approach come from since I was, you know, there and participating. My critiques have grown out of experience of seeing first-hand over the past 20 years some failure modes of these spaces and having grown up and looking at the conversations with a different eye and context now than I had as a teenager or child. But what I get is 'stupid Trumptard'.

Digression aside:

I don't agree might makes right. Do you mean might makes victory? Because 'victory' and 'right' are two different things. I'm an archivist, immediate results are not the only things I consider when I support or don't support worldviews, values, and policies. There are plenty of historical cases where the mightest group 'won' and is now either forgotten or agreed to be in the 'wrong'.

> I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system.

I'm very pro 2A. I even think it should be extended to include equipment made to jam electronics and malicious software code. Tools against tyranny must evolve with the capacities of the tyrants.

I'll also clarify a bit more since you know what you're talking about: I actually hold a meta-belief that there is no 'best' economic and political system, only a best one for a given set of conditions. (There are even some which call for an absolute dictator, but I wouldn't want to live in those conditions personally.) And for right now, syndicalism is the closest ideology, but I actually think we're due for a new one because the theories behind capitalism, communism/socialism, and modern liberal democracy are all tied very closely to a particular informational era and we're leaving that era. I don't know what that new thing will be: I'm waiting to see. God knows I'm not going to figure it out: I'm a random crippled peasant.

I agree that anarchism denies institutions. The primary reason that, if I were to support any of the existent political ideologies right now it would be anarchism is because a lot of our problems right now come from corrupt and ineffective institutions, and investing more in them is a hard sell for me.

> Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself.

I would approach the game thusly: Discussion if possible, first time I cooperate. I cooperate until they defect/break our agreement, and then I don't play anymore. If it's a one time thing with no discussion, I'm just not playing the game. I'll take the longer sentence and figure out another way out - I'm not signaling to my jailers that I'm amenable to manipulation or psychological torture. I'm a huge NC fan and an interesting aspect of their Prisoner's Dilemma/Trust game is how it differs depending on conditions like how many rounds you play. Politics and worldviews aren't a one and done; games are being played every second. In addition, a lot of those 'games' are public and if you play only to win and completely disregard your values, then everybody knows your values aren't real. And then nobody wants to cooperate with you politically except hustlers and Machiavellians. Which we are seeing with the social justice movement - every single part is weighed down by scam artists and hustlers much in the same way some early web groups were overrun with spam. That's what happens when your morals boil down to 'if you say the right things, you're a good person'.

(Also I'd suggest you replay NC's 'We Become What We Behold' - one reason I am here is that it's outside my normal filter bubble and I value that.)

> How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality?

They didn't, and I know it's not popular but I do have some sympathy for the Nazi German populace. Not as much as their victims, obviously, but as somebody who lived through 9/11 and remembers how everybody got caught up in that jingoistic fervor, I have no interest in pretending like we're innately 'better'. As for the latter, of course not, wtf? I was talking in the sense of 'allowing words offensive to a particular inborn quality'. I don't think anybody should be decapitating anyone and I would try to intervene. It's kind of telling that you first went there, honestly. I was thinking of how a progressive Iranian (You know, like the ones who are protesting) might still be uncomfortable with drawings of Muhammed or heresy because that's a cultural thing they were raised with since birth and most of them are still practicing Muslims.

Which kind of leads into the second reason I'm avoiding progressive spaces now: I'm from a purple area in a purple state. My family and general social circle are almost split in half left-right. There's a concerning amount of rhetoric (not just on the left but I learned to avoid most right spaces really early) that I feel is going to lead to my cousin's grandbabies fighting my best friend's grandbabbies or my mom's family fighting my dad's family. There's this rhetoric of 'purge the disbelievers from among you': don't read what the other side says, don't associate with any of them, etc. Sorry, but anybody who gives me an ultimatum about who I should love and care for is not somebody I listen to. Even if you hate my cousins for their belief systems, you're advocating that I leave their babies (literal babies) in that environment and do nothing to help them because it's more 'moral' for me to demonstrate my virtue. Fuck that.

> I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power?

My feelings on truth are...complicated. Basically I think of it similar to an electron cloud - there is a given range of probable truths but we have no way of knowing the exact truths. I do believe in truth in that I believe there are certain things that all humans can observe equally and in the same way - e.g. the acceleration constant. But even that has an asterisk: Humans on the moon or in space get different values. I'm still feeling out my values and thoughts on truth, but right now the closest would be: "I don't believe objective truth exists, I believe it's constructed through human observation of our environment and I believe that having strong constructions is necessary for a functioning society". You can believe something is important even if it's not innate.

Since you used anti-trans rhetoric as your example, I'm curious if you were politically active in the queer community prior to the push for gay marriage? (Just curious because those of us who are older often reach for general anti-queer sentiment but the focus on anti-trans to the exclusion of the rest of the community tends to be a younger person thing because they don't personally remember homosexuals being oppressed). I'm also curious how you define anti-trans? Obviously 'trans people are degenerates that shouldn't exist/we shouldn't allow them to dress and be who they are' is anti-trans. What about 'I agree with everything activists want for trans rights except for sports desegregation?' or 'I think transition is fine but we shouldn't allow minors to make irreversible decisions?' or 'Trans people deserve rights but sometimes I want to talk to other cis lesbians about how isolating it was realizing I didn't like men without having to stop and do emotional labor to help trans women feel like they belong changing the focus of the conversation? (there's a major habit of trans women using lesbian spaces as a therapy substitute)' or 'I'm a detransitioner and want to talk about my experience that doesn't fit into the narrative?' etc. If your first reaction is that I'm sea lioning or those are just edge cases... that's how the right views trans people and POC. Since we're on a tech site, I'll say that what I see is 'building a system without doing any QA or edge case testing, pushing it into production, and then gaslighting the users for not staying on the happy path and gaslighting the customer service people when they say the system isn't working'.


Major props. I suspect I disagree with you politically on many subjects, but I'm pretty sure I could sit down and have a reasonable conversation with you. We would agree on some things, and disagree on more, but we'd hopefully be able to understand even when we disagreed.


I'm a weirdo: I like understanding people I disagree with. Probably because of my upbringing - political and ideological agreement was never necessary for care how I was raised. (I remember pretty vividly when we had a mock presidential election in 3rd grade and my parents each pitched different candidates to me lol).

I find that usually there's a first principle or a blatantly subjective and unresolvable disagreement that's behind most political disagreements. For example, my father is way more pessimistic about human nature than I am and that shows up in a lot of his political views that I disagree with because he's starting from different first principles than I am. There's not an objective answer to 'are humans innately good or bad?' that I can point to in order to sway him. Where I've been successful in swaying others, it's been through understanding how their principles and values/value rankings differ from mine and pitching my solutions/beliefs in a way that works with others' principles rather than insults them.

Besides that, it also helps make my own belief system more robust. If you know something that indicates that what I believe is false, I want to know. I want to grow as a person and refine my understanding of the world until my last breath, not stop at 18 because 'we've figured it out!' Which is more and more driving me out of spaces I used to enjoy: There's a pervasive pressure to continue acting and speaking in an adolescent fashion. A culture that tries to keep me from growing is not healthy, no matter what its ideologies are.

I just like learning things and genuinely like talking to a bunch of different people. The more different from me, the better. I would love to talk to a member of the Taliban, for example. I'm not going to agree with anything, but damn that would be a fascinating conversation to have.


This will have to be in parts. Apologies for the very abstract thinking:

Words are indirect references to ideas, so making sure the idea referenced by the same word is the same is a valuable thing to do. A problem in modern discourse is that frequently two words are spelled identically and used in similar contexts but reference wildly different ideas and contexts (woke, communism, fascism, democracy, racism, etc.). If you asked 100 people to write a paper on those words, their meaning and contexts, and how to test them, I think you would get a lot of variety. These word <-> idea references are developed socially, and eventually you have groups of people saying words outsiders understand and can make sense of, but with completely different meanings. Political sects can literally speak a different language.

You are aware of this and are addressing it by asking if I meant "might makes victory." I appreciate that.

I feel like I need to re-justify my reference to might makes right and define it better. Kissinger might call it realpolitik, but the context of realpolitik makes it something I disagree with. Realpolitik “might makes right” is wrong, but “2nd amendment to stop oppressive forces” “might makes right” is right, Unionization “might makes right” is right, Why?

I think there is a spectrum between “actions are justified because they increase your might”, and “without might you can never get justice.”

So, might makes right is not a justification to be right through might, it’s a warning against being weak or in a position without power.

A better less loaded statement is “might is the ultimate arbiter of disagreements.”

If liberal people think they can rule purely from value and without respect to power structures they are wrong. If anarchic people think they can function without building power structures (institutions) I think they are wrong.

Liberalism is a philosophy of sacrifice and responsibility. Conservatism is a philosophy of struggle and winning. Liberalism is a philosophy that requires consequences for prisoners dilemma defectors to function. Liberalism fails when it denies that it is “might” that arbitrates axiomatic disagreements, not values. Values form culture, and culture influences might, but a culture that does not respect power or pay dues to it is doomed.

Snyder talks about this in a different way in terms of “the politics of inevitability” (the idea that if something is inevitable, you don't have to put your self at risk exercising power to support it) and “the politics of eternity” (the idea that at some point exercising any power is too risky).

All of that providing context for a response:

> finding truth or effective tactics vs making dissidents fall into line.

This is a spectrum and not a black and white view. Effective tactics which must be informed by truth are a very high concern, but that concern must be analyzed in context.

People say culture war and under-emphasize “war.” We are in a culture war. Is our nation a nation of and for white Christians, or is it a nation for all? There is no compromise to be reached, only armistice and ceasefire.

So in terms of effective tactics, how effective was responding “Oh no, not degeneracy” to a person who is likely to share a trench with you? Was the end result more people sharing a truth and increased understanding?

Fascists call liberals fascists, and liberals call fascists fascists. How do you determine what a fascist is and whose assessment is more correct and who’s is just projection.

Degeneracy is a word that has been used to hurt you, and you rightfully wish to not hurt others with it, or even more selfishly/pragmatically/rationally, you don’t want to make a word that has been used against you more powerful.

> internal dissent

Where is the line between internal dissent and infighting. If you fire guns from within your ship, you might make holes and sink the ship. That ship might get “repaired” to be stronger and that could be good, but the context of an enemy to exploit your weaknesses makes all the difference.

> why would I tie myself to a sinking ship?

Fighting oppression requires that some people be on sinking ships. “If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die to tyranny.” A ship everyone is trying to keep afloat is more likely to survive the storm than everyone jumping to escape craft. What happens when all the worlds governments are authoritarian and there’s no where to escape to and no one with a better looking ship?

> better to build a mostly correct ship

Ship building requires resources, especially the resource of time.

> The black and white kneejerk of assuming everybody who dissents is a right-winger

Are you making an assumption about an assumption other people have? Could this create self fulfilling prophecy like behavior? I mentioned 2A because you seemed liberal to me.

> almost 3 decades.

I am but a neophyte.

> But what I get is 'stupid Trumptard'.

Based on what’s been said here I’m not sure I get why. I have a hard time imagining it is dissent in the abstract sense, but dissent done in a specific way.

> institutions

Timothy Snyder has a lot to say on this. You see institutions as a force outside of us, but institutions are us, just like the government is us. I am fairly confident Snyder would say you should take the side of a union/try to help a union function. You’re right any kind of power structure can start to choose loyalty over its values, even unions, and that is the path of least resistance. We are the resistors. We don't get good institutions for free.

> I'll also clarify a bit more…

FWIW, we probably agree in all but name and our personal context. I think the words “anarchy” and “union” have been so hijacked that it is an ineffective tactic to use them. Syndicalist isn’t obvious and requires someone to pay the upfront cost of understanding before they engage with it, that nearly guarantees obscurity.

It seems clear to me the two options right now in America for things that you (in the abstract sense) can do (not something someone else needs to do) are unions or vigilantism. I suspect we both strongly agree with this sentiment. I would like everyone to come to the conclusion that extra-judicial unions are the only way to get a seat at the negotiating table.

> modern liberal democracy

I’m not sure our times now are so different than the greeks, nor are the main concerns with governance and it’s failure mode. I’m no historian and I am way out of my depth. I frequently hear “the greeks struggled with this” in talks about how our own democracy functions.

> leaving that era.

It sounds like you think there might be an AI age. The way power is distributed right now, cyberpunk seems more likely than not. I definitely don't see any reason to expect a good political revolution.

> I don't play anymore.

So your strategy is the Thich Quang Duc strategy? The trans people who want to stay on this planet, don’t get the option to not play.

> play only to win and completely disregard your values

I think you’ve described the core liberal conservative divide. Conservatives think if defecting wins you should do it. Liberals think you should never defect unless it’s required and agonize once it is required.

Both strategies are rational. There is a reason these memes (in the Dawkins sense) have been naturally selected for.

> weighed down by scam artists and hustlers much in the same way some early web groups were overrun with spam

So you’re saying the social movements need more self policing? How does one have an institutional “trial” for a scam artist or hustler? How does this collide with the idea of wanting people to fall in line?

I will respond to the rest tomorrow...

I think you would find Snyder, if nothing else, intellectually stimulating. His book "on tyranny" and his reading of that book (I previously linked to his reading of one chapter) are really well stated IMHO. It's also a ~2 hour read for his illustrated graphic version of the book.

If you like to read interesting things, this is one of the most interesting things I've read: https://www.amacad.org/publication/what-does-it-mean-be-amer...

It talks a lot about the meta structure of society and whether societies exist through shared histories or exist on top of shared values. That is the greater debate/war that is happening in America right now: Is America a country of values, or a country of ethnic groups?


Neutrality means supporting whoever has more power to dominate.

Neutrality means support for injustice because the cost of enforcing justice is too high.


There's a lot of conflicts in the world. I bet you're neutral on many of them (because you don't even know them). Does that mean you actively support the winning side?


I think that is weirdly pedantic and an abuse of the word neutrality.

Would it help if I said "taking a position of neutrality implicitly supports the more powerful and therefore neutrality supports oppression?"


Based.


Oh no! Anyway...


We don't have one right now, reddit is still a unique place (in good and bad ways).


I've been using hive for 5 years now. Solid tech, good people, actually decentralized. Communities (like subreddits) for niche interests. Dozens of front-ends with different focus and style. I've only used the android mobile client but it's pretty slick.

https://ecency.com/ https://hive.io


It looks good. Will sign up and try.

Thanks for sharing :)

Update: The site won't allow me to sign up with Simplelogin aliases or Firefox Relay. It asks for a "real" email address which I personally won't provide. Also, clicking the premium option asks you to download their app. No thanks.


Hey there, we've spent the past one year building an app that's essentially a reddit alternative with better cross language support. We're currently in beta and looking for more users. Please check it out on https://spyke.social


I have been using social media for as long as the internet was generally accessible. This is feedback from that perspective, and I hope it is seen as feedback despite the terse critical tone.

  - That landing page is obnoxious. Show me content, not marketing.
  - I have 0 interest in installing an app.
  - If I installed an app, I would only use it to consume content, not write content.
  - It is incredibly hard to write well thought or researched content without a web browser/keyboard.
  - The colored thread lines are extremely distracting and obnoxious.
  - The default "hinglish" instead of my own language "en-US" is confusing for a 
    platform that promises to be language agnostic.
  - The choice to write text that tells me to click the button, and not creating an 
    interface where button clicking is natural is UI that could be improved.
  - Show that language is seamless, not that I can switch between them.
  - "Klan" is synonymous with Ku Klux Klan to Americans, an extremely racist American 
    organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
  - Putting "Klan" an organization that hates brown people of any type next to 
    "brown people twitter" is confusing from an American cultural perspective.
> don't let AI control what you see, get an unbiased look at content that everyone is voting on.

Everyone claims no bias. If someone says unbiased, I do not trust them. I would prefer someone to show me they are self aware of their own bias and know what those bias are.

If I watched news that told me only things I agree with, I would consider that unbiased news. In China, "Taiwan is part of China" is a statement Chinese would consider to have no bias. "unbias" has no practical meaning.

Even if AI isn't optimizing for "engagement"/addiction, there are still bots impersonating users which use AI to influence conversations.


...assuming another reddit model is desired. Reddit turned into a cesspool long before it's API changes.


Computing history is one that swings between centralization and decentralization.

Before reddit there were decentralized forums. Reddit took the idea of forums and centralized it so multiple forums are now hosted on one site.

Desire for threaded discussion still exists, and I think centralization has more network effect benefits than drawbacks.

I think there is definitely a market for threaded discussion with more heavy handed moderation against poorly educated/bad faith people.


https://tildes.net/


Not familiar with it prior to your comment. A bit refreshing the post about Apple conference has less comments than multiple other items on the front page


How to get an invite? I am unable to sign up.


Keep an eye out for the next invite round at https://old.reddit.com/r/tildes/

In the mean time you don't need an account for Tildes read-only access.


I liked the userbase, I did not like the (back then) single overlord/admin.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: