Could users decide to leave Facebook, Twitter the same way they leaved Digg or Myspace?
Or are those website somehow built to prevent mass move (e.g: each user visibility being limited by the number of friends and followers ) ?
I wasn't active online for the end of MySpace or Digg, but just given their nature and a general idea of how things went, it seems pretty different from reddit. For reddit, there hasn't been a better option come forward, like happened with Facebook. A main component of reddit is the sheer number of users, which means that places like us here or voat will need to really swell in ranks before they offer a real alternative. Reddit's uniqueness, I think, also means what it's going through is unlikely to happen to Facebook, Tumblr, or Twitter. Those all, like Hubski, rely largely pans direct consumer interaction, through focusing on individuals and rely mainly on sharing on an individual level to 'move' content. Reddit, on the other hand, is grouped up by common interests, and has relatively limited social interaction due to it's voting process. One can vote on a reddit post without commenting, without sharing that you did, and without any interaction with the poster. If we take Hubski for example, since I'm most familiar with it, 'voting' for a post actually shares it (like Facebook or Tumblr), meaning it is visible to your followers and potential followers. When compared to other social media sites, reddit is built in just such a way that a sudden mass exodus is possible, just as a user protest against the administration is also possible. Also, I doubt it would happen because reddit serves a very different function than Facebook or Twitter. Not only is it anonymous, but it also isn't focused on direct social interaction with real world friends. The focus is so much more on the content, it is, after all, 'the front page of the internet,' that people can leave and find other sources quite easily, while places like Hubski can provide a similar interaction for those who desire that, though generally on a smaller scale. Finally, I hope the Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, &c... execs are watching Pap and what is going on for a good idea of what not to do.
One of the things I love about Hubski's "voting" system is that your vote history is literally shown. That means you can't anonymously share things, which will discourage discussions like you see on Reddit such as Fat People Hate. No one with a good head and a good heart would participate in such discussions. Those who at least want to appear to have a good head and a good heart will be hesitant to share something that will put them in a poor light. It's this second effect that will further help to facilitate healthy, thoughtful conversations.
Having just come here I'm impressed with the way it handles anonymity whilst maintaining the elements of personal interaction common in everyday life. To be respected on a community like Hubski you have to wisely choose how to state and voice your opinions because if you start spouting pointless or ruthless words people will mute you. This is common in everyday life. Frequently I'll avoid discussions with people because the things they say are pointless, annoying, illogical etc.... To be respected on Hubski as in real life you have to be an active communicator. Responding to the individuals around you with intelligent and thought out points. I'm glad to be here. This is the type of community I've always wanted. Quick question... Is there any post, besides the short tutorial, which could give me the essential basics of Hubski? Thanks,
Shefster
Welcome Shefster! Check out the primer page: https://hubski.com/primer Beyond that just let me know if you have any questions
But isn't this pretty much how Tumblr works now (vote=repost on your tumblr)? There doesn't seem anything implicit in this scheme that will directly lead to thoughtful conversations... It seems more like a function of the community rather than the vote system (/r/AskHistorians is a good example)
The site you are seeing now is the result of nearly 5 years of effort. We have implemented new features and retracted some too along the way all I service of building a site and a community that could foster thoughtful discussion. That said, we are not a static site, meaning that if we find there is a better way to facilitate our goals, we will employ them. More often than not these "better ways" come directly from the community. My suggestion is to check out our primer use the site for a while and then let us know what you think. The sharing mechanism here is more akin to Twitter than it is reddit. For sure. Welcome!
It's like a mix of Reddit and Twitter and I love it :) I get the discussion of Reddit (small sub discussion at least) while having the connected feeling of twitter without having to reveal any personal information. Love what you're doing here!
Thank you Pete, that's really nice to hear. I hope you stick around and do let us know if you have any questions or suggestions. Cheers!
Well the thing is, it's not really "voting." You're actually sharing. When you share a post, it brings it to light on the feed of any person that is following you. That way, people of like minds and like passions can discover things together. So it's not really re-posting per se, but spreading the word.
Yes, and AFAIK, sharing-on-your-feed is exactly what Tumblr's system is, and that hasn't exactly turned out to be a bastion of... anything, really. If Hubski seems good so far, it seems more likely because of the community than any underlying system. I like the community, but things like the prevention of insular groups(and the resulting brigading) is legitimately hard... How is hubski's system equipped to handle these problems? (Edit: just to be clear, I don't intend this to be snarky, I'm legitimately curious about this problem. Reading through the primer now.)
I think it's mostly a function of the looseness of the "groups" of Hubski. Since there aren't subreddits, posts get grouped by poster/sharer, tags, and badged. Basically instead of walling off groups from one another Hubski lets each person define their own content groupings. You're sort of your own mod on Hubski, deciding what and who you want to see more or less of. Things that most people don't care for can/will be filtered and trolls/spambots just end up talking to each other, if anyone. Even though you don't necessarily see the same posts as everyone else Hubski gives more of a feeling of a singular community rather than many fragmented ones IMO.
The thing I find most interesting about reddit's death is that they keep having these "REDDIT'S ABOUT TO DIE" moments, but ultimately recover from them in a way that Digg and Myspace didn't. I'm not sure this particular event will break reddit's hold or if it's just another paper cut in the slow bleed-out of the website.
I was on Reddit for 7 years, they had their share of drama, but none of it seems to compare to the current moment. I think it'll follow Digg's downfall, but probably last a bit longer. One of Diggs primary problems wasn't community driven. Their expenditure was reportedly 200k a month. An unsustainable amount of money. Community exoduses seem to happen in waves. I think what happens is core users (the people who add the most signal to discussions) leave. What slowly starts happening is the quality of discussion gradually dips. In fact, it's been dipping for quite a while in default subs. These big dips though are usually enough shake to get a few more people to leave. Ultimately though the biggest saving grace for Reddit is probably SubReddits. While general areas have long been degraded (/r/politics hasn't had a reasonable thread in years) the more niche subs have managed to maintain their level of quality. I think this will make the site last a bit longer then the normal rotational period, but as these niche communities grow mirrors in refugee areas, people will slowly stop having a reason to continue visiting Reddit. If the niche communities leave, the downfall will then become exponential until some kind of equilibrium is found. Then, the site will last as long as the coffers allow it.
They could. In my opinion, discontent on a platform is rarely obvious until it stabs you in the back. You can brush off the angry users on reddit and point out (correctly) that they are a small hivemind of trolls and bullies. However, that minority is preaching to a silent majority who are thinking "You're an ass, but I don't think they should have done what they did to you." But they continue to participate in the site because they are comfortable, and there aren't any viable (better) alternatives. This is just dandy, except that the user base no longer has any loyalty to the platform. When there is an alternative, a minority of more actively discontented users move, and they tell their friends. The friends tell friends. And so on. In a very short period of time, the original site is a desert, and the "alternative" is now the place to be. It could happen to Facebook, with a few more mistakes and the rise of a better alternative that could pull the teen audience.
I think facebook already is in a downward spiral. I'm 16, and most of us tend to use stuff like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or Vine rather than facebook, which is probably why you see Facebook acquiring stuff like Instagram, Snapchat, and Vine. I'm coming from reddit myself, and I'm really enjoying the format of Hubski, especially the lack of obvious centralization. One thing I would like, however, is a way to see a "score" on your posts, but that's not a huge deal to me to be completely honest.
I think Facebook is probably immune from the big-bang-death of Digg et al, but I do think it's in decline. More and more, my social group is leaving Facebook and falling back on a combination of email, instant messaging and Instagram to keep in touch. Everyone still has a Facebook account, but my news feed has come to be dominated by a small subset of my friends who still actively post; I myself barely ever sign on any more.
I think there's an issue of "can I replace this" and "do I care" when it comes to other sites. Every time a change gets made to Facebook or YouTube people get up in arms, vow to leave, etc. but more often than not they don't because there's not another site that caters to that specific need, or there are alternatives but they're not as well supported or don't have the content users are looking for. I think the other thing is people get very invested in sites that they're not paying a thing for and it almost feels like a personal betrayal on some level and they fail to realize that they're basically there to generate revenue. All that being said, I think Reddit is an interesting case because it's not just "there's changes to the site that I don't like" it's "I don't like the way you're treating employees that we've come to know and love and we think you're a lying sneak." That human element may be what actually makes this more effective than our usual angry fist shaking.
I've seen a few migrations in my time. I wasn't a part of DIGG, but I did witness that happen. Reddit, if they're not careful, could go the same way for different reasons. FARK messed up bad because they royally pissed off their user base over the course of a year or so. The fact that they were a smaller site and there was plenty of competition out there during that period didn't do them any favors. Myspace kind of died on its own. Part of that was due to selling out, part of that was due to Facebook opening up their site to non-college users and offering a better service. Facebook just offered a better product and Myspace couldn't compete. Facebook and Twitter are both kind of different. Facebook has a captive audience, because that's how a lot of people stay connected online. Quitting Facebook can have a literal, negative impact on people's social lives. Twitter on the other hand has a small active user base, but it's circled around people with strong social followings, like Celebrities and influential members of various sub groups. If they're to die down, it'll be through boredom and inactivity, or a better option eventually coming along, like what happened between Myspace and Facebook.
I doubt the masses are actually leaving Reddit. They're making unhappy noises about what happened to one of the admins, which was certainly mysterious and shitty. But they like their inane circle-jerk pun-threads, cat pictures and politically correct echo-chambers, and so they probably won't actually be going anywhere. But to answer your question, yes, of course it could happen.
Facebook and twitter all share a common aspect: mainstream. Every single person in the world knows what Facebook and Twitter are but hardly any knows what Reddit is. Reddit changed the search function and that factored into what the mods are angry about now. Facebook used to change the layout of the entire site whenever they wanted to and largely got away with it. The major difference is internet culture vs. mainstream culture. Internet culture knows what it wants from their sites and gets really angry when they try to change it. Mainstream couldn't care less. It's possible people could leave Facebook and twitter but not likely.
I agree with you but for the last two years or so Reddit has become mainstream. You are right about mainstream users,they don't really care about censorship and the other problems of reddit.
I don't think so. I've been a Redditor for 8 years and I've never seen anything like this. Really clumsy firings of people. Not just Victoria, but Dan McComas who STARTED SecretSanta years ago, was abruptly terminated without warning and for no apparent reason. Just bad mishandling by someone (Pao) who doesn't know what she's doing.
I think people like being were others are, hence Facebook remaining popular despite all the bs they've pulled. It may happen, but I think it takes place over years, not months. Further, the new site needs to offer something new, not just a lateral transition with less bs.