HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
50% Positive
Analyzed from 2922 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#posts#social#media#more#mastodon#don#users#old#reddit#where
Discussion (55 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Sadly that's still an open issue that from time to time gets new input, but doesn't have a lot of traction. I feel like that's a big blind spot of Mastodon to this day and also basically forces people to stick to the largest instances that are less likely to go away, defeating the purpose of a distributed social network.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/12423
I'm really just not convinced social media is very useful. The main use I can see is very fast dispersal of information, but anything truly important will be distributed by mainstream media, and less important things will travel between small communities at a slower rate. So what are we left with exactly?
I think small communities where people actually have to maintain a reputation are the future, and the past.
I believe early on in the internet, there was more discussion of reputation systems like you see for eBay sellers.
Seems like this area hasn't advanced very much. You've got karma systems like on HN, and follow-count systems like on X or Instagram, but both of those arguably track "usage intensity" x "susceptibility to audience capture" more than "reputation".
Low-hanging fruit would be if X showed you the number of Community Notes a user has received. They aren't even bothering to do that.
That's a shame. It seems to me that we are in a frustrating situation where there are probably clever ways to solve the problems created by social media. But because launching new social platforms requires solving a difficult chicken-and-egg problem, we don't get very many chances to try anything new or innovative.
Another way of putting it is: Occasionally people will speculate about ways to fix issues with Twitter, reddit, etc. Such speculation feels fairly pointless, because there is little evidence that the moderators of those platforms are listening to suggestions, or even care about anything besides profit maximization. Without much demand for improvement ideas, the supply of such ideas tends to dry up as well.
If anyone else is in this situation of desiring to sunset a social platform, I would encourage them to run a contest. People can enter your contest by submitting plans for how to revitalize the platform / a genuinely new direction for social media. You judge the entries, pick a winner, and the winner takes over administration of your platform so they can try out their proposed new direction.
I feel like once you arrive at the situation where you want to free up your time and shut down a project (Which is already a hard decision to arrive at) you'll not want to put in extra work to run some contest, pick a winner, hand over domains, infra or figure out a way forward.
It already takes me a lot of energy to shut down side projects with little to no users instead of just keep paying for it.
Another way of thinking about it: Suppose the exact same userbase had joined Usenet, but they trickled in gradually instead of flooding in all at once. How much would that have changed the outcome?
FWIW I used to think it was human capital, but have updated more towards cultural explanations. For example, it seems fairly common for academics to make fools of themselves online nowadays.
In 2026, almost everyone is an internet user.
It's kind of like saying "As someone whose first car was a Model T, I don't really consider the bulk of mainstream drivers today to be in any way 'my people'".
I will say though the GP's comment:
> The herd is endlessly mindless, shallow, bought with bread, and hungry for the circus.
That's just everybody, including them even if they refuse to admit it. I have fond memories of many a circus on USENET, on ICQ, on AOL chat rooms, on 4chan, on Digg, everything. They all have circuses with different sorts of clowns putting on different sorts of shows. But they're all equally value-free. Pretending otherwise is just wanking yourself.
Then I go online, and there's a high likelihood I encounter people from other countries; worse is when you don't even enjoy a little bit of multiculturalism, but all you experience is a majority of people from one country which isn't even yours - like being on this site or Reddit or Twitter and being bombarded by the US perspective of US matters.
It's easy for terminally online people like me to forget who even are your people.
I can't figure out if this is me or if things really have changed. I was on early Reddit (before there were comments) and HN. There were always jerks and flamewars and pedants but it just feels like any thread I read on HN or Reddit is just full of the worst behavior. People think nothing of just being incredibly, incredibly rude to strangers and ther insights are often banal. I've watched long-time members of HN die and I can only think: do I really want to spend most of my life (or a good portion) doing this? It seems so empty.
What do people even get out of this? Is life this boring that people find it entertaining? I just don't get it anymore and I can't figure out if the novelty is gone (connecting people is overrated if it leads to...this), it's my age, or if the vibe really has shifted. I don't get any enjoyment out of it anymore and I feel like something is wrong with me because others do (only barely, this is insanity that we've adapted to).
2005 me thought things were going to be a lot more interesting, but things haven't really evolved towards anything positive in the forum/soc media space. (HN is social media - just trolling, the arguments of this are funny). There's gotta be something better. Do people even want better communities, would they recognize them, or is this the new normal? Is the optimism of 2005 dead, impossible to resurrect?
The medium is the message. Certain specific features, such as the retweet-with-comment feature, incentivize starting fights. Older platforms didn't feature likes/retweets as prominently. Newer platforms are constantly giving you numerical scores, which leads to competitive socialization and status-seeking. Some people are into that sort of thing. And to be fair, clout is objectively valuable in certain ways.
Those forces weren't present on early social media, and have only gotten worse over time.
Over its course the Internet and Web took over just about all communications, including culturally anchoring things like TV, radio, and newspapers. The takeover accelerated with the rise of broadband, Facebook and smartphones, and is nearly complete. The whole world's here.
This means people who want to advertise, influence, or control large numbers of people also followed.
On my Instagram, sometimes I'll see local news, and the fake accounts are very obvious, they all post practically the same thing and all of their profiles follow similar patterns. Maybe this will go away when everything becomes ID-gated.
The optimism of 2005 was pre-smartphone, pre-social-media, and well before everyone's grandparents were constantly regurgitating political posts on Facebook.
> Do people even want better communities
Most people do not want to put in the work to make them, but they'll certainly join and passively let people run themselves into the ground entertaining them for free. It doesn't make sense to do all the work for lazy people unless you're just wanting to broadcast to the largest audience possible.
Reddit grew up as a community of edgelords. Trying to be funny by exaggeratedly insulting others is just how it was. Think a community of Ben Shapiros. Coming to the site as an outsider could be brutal until you got used to ignoring it (or engaging, if you're into it).
Eventually normal-adjacent people took over the site, which caused a boon of interesting topics and diverse opinions for a long while. The rude-to-be-funny thing never quite stopped, but when it went too far it was moderated or downvoted away.
I'd agree that things have been going downhill for many years now. The peak of genuine and quality engagement is long behind us. LLM-assisted comments are certainly not helping (I'm not talking about bots, I mean people who direct LLMs to write their comments).
Reddit was rather similar to HN in the earliest days: https://web.archive.org/web/20060415194256/http://www.reddit...
People who post on the internet are outliers, something like 98% of message board users lurk, can't remember who said it but someone summed it up as "everyone you talk to online is crazy". The reality is life is boring a lot of the time and I've always seen online interaction not as a substitute for social life but with no expectation. Sometimes you get good conversations, often you don't.
There is more negativity in terms of volume which has a quality of its own because it seeps more into real life than in it used to, but honestly some conversations in the olden days were worse.
> Is life this boring that people find it entertaining?
I don’t think it has to do with boredom or entertainment. Social networks like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok do push you into addictive behaviour on purpose, but I do think even HN (inadvertently) has addictive properties.
> I can't figure out if the novelty is gone (connecting people is overrated if it leads to...this), it's my age, or if the vibe really has shifted.
Pretty sure it’s the vibe. Plus, whatever we’re doing here is not really connecting with other people, it’s more akin to shouting at each other across a void. I do still frequent one old-style forum, and there I do see some connection between the regulars.
> things haven't really evolved towards anything positive in the forum/soc media space.
Once money became a factor, it was only a matter of time. Just the other day I was also thinking how I can’t even stand podcasts anymore, and all the ads are a major factor. Seems like every podcast is part of a network and it’s all about money. No one is just having fun anymore.
> There's gotta be something better.
There is. It’s friends offline.
Reason I ask, is if whoever is in charge have considered to support moving posts and interactions from one server to another.
https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/1580/...
I'm sure there is some technical excuse to why this is the case but just seems entirely broken that it can't just have the owner of the account provably broadcast they control both the original and the destinations and to redirect all posts.
I mean the actual thing that has value IS the posts and there would be less burden on people shutting down these servers if you were not destroying that work by doing so.
The user can download their posts.
When a host goes away, where do you propose the posts previously hosted there now get hosted?
One option is for the poster's new host to have all the old posts uploaded ... how then to previous other posts that point at them, or reply to them, get updated?
I'd genuinely be interested to hear your suggestions for how these technical issues could be resolved.
When a reference to a post becomes invalid because it's underlying host is gone, the other host holding those references tries to find new duplicate posts with the correct signature, and if it finds them, updates the broken old references to point to these new duplicates. If it doesn't find any duplicates with a matching signature, it leaves the references broken and has some cooldown before it tries to fix them again.
Not pretending to know anything about the system feel free to point out why this wouldn't work. I'm just approaching it from a user perspective that having to lose posts to move server is bad for users and having to choose to nuke all posts in the case of shutting down a server is bad for admins.
When a server stops federating, the federated posts still exist in the DB of all the remote instances that recieved it. They're still indexed and searchable from there. You could move those posts into the DB of a new server, but they'll still "originate" from the old one. But you can carry on and interact with old threads.
There's no real foolproof mechanism for updating posts, although there is an AP Update activity, much like deletes there's nothing forcing an instance to respect it.
One of the main issues of running a federated Mastodon instance with little to no money and donations will not cut it.
Anyways, on Aug 1st their pricing is increasing to $50/year (150% increase!) and now I'm far less convinced that the value it offers is worth the money.
Users must selfhost data for decentralized socials to work. One big problem with running a Twitter-like social media, Twitter itself included, is that hosting UGC is just risk without rewards. Users don't pay for the bandwidth, advertisers don't like competing quality UGC(they're possibly even angry about social media that it keeps undermining their "creatives" investment), just no one pays for it.
So, a Mastodon alternative has to be selfhosted by default, and infinitely easy to set up for selfhost. "First, connect to your spare Pi with a global IPv4 address" is out of question. Multihop P2P likely won't work either.
I've tried many times, there's decent apps too these days (Primal) but unless you are heavily into that topic or crypto it's not very interesting.
https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/tootctl/#self-destruct
EDIT: Once the server disappears, users who did nothing will lose the ability to delete their accounts later.
Without self-destruct, remote servers may retain cached profiles and posts indefinitely, but the original users will no longer control those objects. Mastodon created the command specifically to broadcast account deletions before a permanent shutdown and leave little cached material behind.