this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
113 points (92.5% liked)

SNOOcalypse - document, discuss, and promote the downfall of Reddit.

4672 readers
1 users here now

SNOOcalypse is closing down. If you wish to talk about Reddit, check out [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected].


This community welcomes anyone who wants to see Reddit gone. Nuke the Snoo!

When sharing links, please also share an archived version of the target of your link.

Rules:

  1. Follow lemmy.ml's global rules and code of conduct.
  2. Keep it on-topic.
  3. Don't promote illegal stuff here.
  4. Don't be stupid, noisy, obnoxious or obtuse (S.N.O.O.)
  5. Have fun, and enjoy the popcorn! 🍿

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Here's the list of highlights from the article, as it's a good TL;DR:

  • The Reddit app-pocalyse is here: Apollo, Sync, and BaconReader go dark
  • How Reddit crushed the biggest protest in its history
  • Reddit will remove mods of private communities unless they reopen
  • Reddit CEO Steve Huffman isn’t backing down: our full interview
  • Why disabled users joined the Reddit blackout
  • Apollo’s Christian Selig explains his fight with Reddit — and why users revolted
  • A developer says Reddit could charge him $20 million a year to keep his app working
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fwiw I do not consider this "late" - perhaps we can reassess our standards over here, for quality >> quantity / speed:-D. Fwiw I never got that particular reply, though I did get screeched at for offering things like a URL to answer questions like "does anyone know how to...", despite how the website perfectly answered said question. Choosing beggars and so on. And just to push this further: I have not logged onto kbin to even so much as look for your reply for the last 18 hours, so even if you had replied sooner, I would not have seen it:-).

It does seem rather odd to associate the word "rational" with that line of thinking but...yes, "robotic" even, very formulaic as in "does this benefit me in the short-term? if so then I will do it". The odd part is that it seems to presume that people not wanting to leave then are considering those who did as "irrational" actors, when in reality both are rational, just looking at different time-scales: short vs. long-term.

Yes sci-fi really does break down all conventions, as we transition away from our mammalian past and morph into biotech, robotech, or othertech beings, like 2001 A Space Odyssey demonstrated. Although films like The Matrix and the Stargate series showcase an entirely different mode of leaving: jumping up to the next level of reality itself!:-P I love books that show even odder futures for us, like we all send our consciousnesses into the sun and then spread out to the galaxy as stellar beings, who then run "humanity" as a simulation, so that you can be all of the people all at once. If it can be done, it will, although it may be good to think about what is lost at each stage even as also move forward into what is gained - e.g. in Star Trek they tried genetic engineering, but later abandoned it in order to ~~make a more stable premise for the TV show~~ something something remain "human"? :-P

I suppose, remaining entirely inside your food analogy, what I was getting at (as you also said) is how people CHOOSE to value different things - e.g. for some of us, bacon on a cheeseburger with a coke/soda/pop/cola for dinner/supper/late meal is the most heavenly & delightful food available on earth, while for others it is outright forbidden/haram (but not always for the same reasons, e.g. for a Mormon the pork is fine, in moderation, while the coke is the bad part iirc) and for still others it is permissible but merely disgusting, e.g. if you are already overweight and realize how long you would have to exercise to burn it off, or think ahead to how you will toss and turn that night instead of sleep peacefully.

Which reminds me of the STEM adage that a simple concept behind the word "good" does not exist, but rather something is always either "good" or "bad" or whatever FOR a given purpose. But even ignoring that, for someone who has never had such a burger in their entire life, I am not entirely certain that they would find it even so much as "tasty" (the concept of sinfully delicious perhaps? :-P), and many Asians for instance do not enjoy the taste of chocolate for whatever reason.

But yes, the two bads I can get behind: spam vs. candy, both in opposition to real food - the former objectively bad (whether someone is edumacashiated enough to realize that or not) while the latter is addictive, and can be used to "good" effect if treated with proper caution but long-term usage may lead to problems.

I think Reddit was always content-based though? That was its beauty - like if you have an issue, you do not care so much who solves it, so much as that you can find your answer. But yes, very rarely you meet someone worth talking to over and over, and those are excellent days indeed:-).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The economic "rational agent" that I'm referring to is, in large part, robotic. It (yup, "it" - it's an abstraction, not a real person) is devoid of emotion and motivated by self-interest alone. It would gladly burn a circus full of people to make some popcorn. It does take long term into account, but only for itself, never for the others.

I just find it funny that, even if it's called "rational", its behaviour describes rather well how irrational masses behave.

Bacon on a cheeseburger: isn't that basically porn? Some outright enjoy it, some avoid it, and some try to avoid it but still consume it in small amounts. Or even politics, for some, who apparently see apolitical content as disgusting.

Which reminds me of the STEM adage that a simple concept behind the word “good” does not exist,

Yes. Yes and it goes further - "good" and "bad" don't have intrinsic value, they depend on a point of reference and a specific attribute. And there's often implicit but never stated moral statements, when people using it. Those aren't taboo words for me, mind you, but we need to be a bit careful about how and why we use them, and make sure that the others are on the same page on what should be called "good" / "bad".

For example. When I talk about "good content", that "good" can be two things:

  • content depth - or, how it informs you, makes you think, makes you more knowledgeable
  • content desirability - by itself relative to a certain audience, but we can approximate it to an abstract "average user".

I think Reddit was always content-based though?

Yes but it's clear that the admins were making it more social media-based. Posting to profile, livestream, chat, those things are practically useless in a content-centric site, but they're essential for a social interactions-based one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It does take long term into account, but only for itself, never for the others.

Rational agents can take long-term into account, so if people on Reddit watching it all burn & fall apart before their eyes are choosing to ignore that, are they "fully" rational agents then?

In any case, they might be correct in staying, IF we only only allow looking ahead like a month or so in time - b/c inertia is a real thing. Even then, for some of us it is no longer worth it, while for others it is.

Also, why would upvoting a comment such as "^THIS 1000%" constitute a long-term style of rational acting? It adds nothing to the discussion, so when all "discussion" becomes replaced by such, which float to the top b/c of the large number of upvotes (& maybe awards, etc.), then "real" content such that people might actually come to Reddit - like via a Google search for a specific query - get buried below them? If that is "rational", then it seems short-sighted to me.

Or in opposition to rational, there is maybe "emotional", so that you have a feeling and want to express it, and you see something that expresses that, so you "like" it further, in addition to liking / upvoting the original comment - without considering the long-term ramifications.

Yes but it’s clear that the admins were making it more social media-based.

True - many were resisting that, but it was happening, truth.