What does this sentence mean? No what? On what platform?
> It is easy to create another subreddit
It is easy to create another website.
> if you create another subreddit, you have full access to all the same Reddit infrastructure as every other redditor
So what? There is no distinction from a moderation perspective. If you don't like how the mods run a subreddit you can use a different subreddit, same as any other forum on the internet.
> So no, you cannot just create a new website, and get all of the very significant benefits that you would get, from having it all on Reddit, using the same infrastructure, and account, and mobile app, and posting history, and follower list, ect,ect ect, for example.
Yes you can just create a new website or use a different. You don't "own" the users of reddit.com, there is no reason why one should be entitled to the infrastructure or the users.
> What you have described here is exactly how all websites work
Not within the platform, no.
It is easy to create another subreddit. And if you create another subreddit, you have full access to all the same Reddit infrastructure as every other redditor.
I am talking about access to the platform.
> Except you change a few more characters
No, you would not have access to all the Reddit infrastructure, and access to all the cross site stuff, using the same Reddit account.
It is pretty easy to move across Reddit, and within Reddit, and get all the advantages of it. You don't get all those advantages, if it is another website.
Other people can't use, for example, the same mobile Reddit app, to access your website, and would have to download a new app.
They can't log in using the same account. They can't keep track of their posting history, all through the same user link.
There are numerous examples like that. There are lots and lots of benefits to using the actual Reddit website, compared to using a different website.
So no, you cannot just create a new website, and get all of the very significant benefits that you would get, from having it all on Reddit, using the same infrastructure, and account, and mobile app, and posting history, and follower list, ect,ect ect, for example.
You can't get all the same benefits of having it all on reddit. Things like being on the same mobile app, and having the same user account.
> Yes you can just create a new website or use a different. You don't "own" the users of reddit.com, there is no reason why one should be entitled to the infrastructure or the users.
This is called a barrier to entry. regardless of who "owns" all of these benefits, it is still something that a person does not get, if they simply create a different website.
The missing benefits, would make "creating another website", significantly less useful, and are the ones that I mentioned before. You would not be on the same mobile app, would not have the same follower list, would not have the same user account, ect.
These are huge benefits that one would not get if they simply created a different website. Who "owns" it, does not change the true fact that these benefits are large, and you would not get them if you merely created a new website.
> There is no distinction from a moderation perspective
Yes there is. The difference is that if you create a new website, you don't get all those significant benefits that I talked about. That is the distinction that I am talking about.
> who, exactly, deems subreddits not worthy of existence.
That would be the company which owns reddit, through the admins. Is it fair? No, it isn't, but reddit has no requirement to be fair (although it would be nice if it was).
> more decentralized Internet where people, not platforms, have real ownership and control
Does this mean Reddit will give control of its forums, or the equivalent thereof in meta-space to its users? Reddit is a "platform" right? It seems to be saying that it doesn't want to be in control.
How so? Reddit pays for the infrastructure and software, why would anyone expect they own their own subreddit? Are people really expecting Reddit to operate at a loss? If you want to own it, pay for it.
> Reddit is not valuable because it owns a serverfarm, or even because it employs people to maintain the serverfarm. It's valuable because it controls a cultural meetingpoint.
How did it come to control a cultural meeting point? Was it because they owned a server farm and employed people to create a website people wanted to use at the right time and the right place?
> Reddit provides some things, but not the actually-important things.
This will be easily proven by people moving from Reddit to an alternative. Or disproven by not moving to an alternative.
Well, it wouldn't take that long, given that the entire Reddit code base is open source: https://github.com/reddit
Really, anybody can literally clone Reddit anytime they want to.
But not only is it likely impossible for a competitor to attract a significant portion of the Reddit user base, what would a competitor do assuming they did manage it? All a competitor would have done is bought themselves a money-losing operation. Unless you're a charitable billionaire or a well-funded non-profit organization, why would anyone want to do that?
> It makes sense to think of Reddit as an application rather than a company.
Saying something makes sense doesn't make it make sense. Reddit is not just an application. Reddit is millions of like-minded users exchanging thoughts on a wide variety of subjects. The software or application may affect how those users interact with the other users, but it is the users at the end of the day that define what Reddit (or this site) is.
> Before, mods could run subreddits as they saw fit, users could choose the subreddits they participated in, and a user can always create a new subreddit if they don't think any existing ones suit their needs.
As a frequent Reddit user I don't agree with that. The network effects of subreddits plus the fact that they usually own the default name for a topic grant a lot of subs effective monopolies.
As a user if I don't like something about a certain subreddit including how it's moderated, the more realistic option is just to not participate in that subject matter on Reddit. I can still use Reddit for other topics but I feel like there's very rarely an alternative subreddit on the same topic which is anywhere near as active as the main one.
So, no offense to Reddit mods, but I really don't think these are all highly skilled, irreplaceable individuals. There's no competition that incentivizes the best people to rise to the top, these are just average folks that volunteered at the right time and now they're mods. There is apparently even a lot of cronyism among the mod community and I have heard that it can be hard to break into for first time mods.
If Reddit forces some of them out, there will be many people willing to step in who can do just as good of a job. It might even be a net positive thing to get new people involved.
> If Reddit forces them off, and they create www.askhistorians.com, then I'm making a account there.
And that's fine, but you're talking as if everyone is like you, with only 1 subreddit that they browse.
In reality (and reddit probably has the numbers to verify this), most people jump across maybe 10 or more different mods.
They're not going to go create 10 different accounts elsewhere.
I personally am not a big reddit user, and yet I have about 10 sunreddits that I subscribe to. Logging into reddit (old.reddit), I see all those posts after login.
This is also the reason why the federated system is broken by design: the type of users who use reddit don't want the friction of logging onto a dozen different instances to see all the posts related to ONE top.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that centralisation is what provides the value reddit has. Moderators (seriously, those people are a dime a dozen - in fact you can charge mods a fee and you still won't run out of mods wanting to sign up) are not the primary value in reddit. Posts are not the primary value in reddit.
Being the central place where all the people you want to hang out with are hanging out is the primary value of reddit.
> What's wrong with just saying that it's their platform and they have the right to set the rules?
1) They don't want to alienate people who care about free speech.
2) A lot of people liked reddit because it was user-driven, and don't like it when the content they see is selected by admins and mods. They want to keep the illusion of being user-driven as long as they can.
I think you nailed it. It’s a victory for USERS - owning your own assets in a way that does not require you to trust the platform. It’s not so great for centralized platforms.
> 2. I open Reddit today and it’s different but not inferior. I’d argue the real value of Reddit nowadays is in all the nice subreddits one subscribes to, and most of them are still alive and active. My friends who just started redditting last year have not even noticed the whole shebang.
Most of these subreddits are driven by content creators and moderators who are fully dependent on third-party apps and moderation frameworks. The consumers might not personally care about those features, but if the core members of these small communities give up, all the content will dry up.
>that Reddit employees have the ability to edit messages with no audit trail and no governance.
Help me understand this. Reddit is a private company. Is there some sort of contract somewhere that says they won't edit messages and will maintain an audit trail? I mean, I might not like that they are doing it, but I'm also not paying a dime for Reddit (and I have all ads blocked, so they doubly aren't making any money off of me) so I don't see where I can be upset if Reddit does this. You get what you pay for.
If we want governance and audit trails, it either needs to be maintained as a public resource, paid for out of tax dollars, or needs to be a fully paid for product that involves entering into a 2 way contract. Otherwise, I think they are free and clear to do whatever they want to do with any subreddits, posts, or comments.
What does this sentence mean? No what? On what platform?
> It is easy to create another subreddit
It is easy to create another website.
> if you create another subreddit, you have full access to all the same Reddit infrastructure as every other redditor
So what? There is no distinction from a moderation perspective. If you don't like how the mods run a subreddit you can use a different subreddit, same as any other forum on the internet.
> So no, you cannot just create a new website, and get all of the very significant benefits that you would get, from having it all on Reddit, using the same infrastructure, and account, and mobile app, and posting history, and follower list, ect,ect ect, for example.
Yes you can just create a new website or use a different. You don't "own" the users of reddit.com, there is no reason why one should be entitled to the infrastructure or the users.
reply