[HN Gopher] Reddit raises $410M in new funding ___________________________________________________________________ Reddit raises $410M in new funding Author : infodocket Score : 111 points Date : 2021-08-12 14:54 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | barbazoo wrote: | What the hell does a site like Reddit do with almost half a | billion dollars?! That's insane. | gkoberger wrote: | It's not easy to run a company with as many users as they have. | | As a mod, they've put a lot of work recently into flagging | trolls and astroturf accounts, and still have a lot of work to | do. I run r/sanfrancisco, and wow there's a ton of bots and | trolls flooding our sub about the Newsom recall. | | They also seem to really want to find a way to monetize content | in a new way. They've flirted with crypto and awards, but I | imagine they have strong ambitions around how they can reward | creators and moderators in a healthy, non-ad-based-way. (Their | ads are the worst of all the big social networks, given how | anonymous their base is. So they're forced to innovate, which I | think is good for everyone.) | | Plus the usual suspects (infrastructure, traditional demand gen | marketing, paid moderation, etc). | setr wrote: | >Their ads are the worst of all the big social networks, | given how anonymous their base is. So they're forced to | innovate, which I think is good for everyone | | The oddity is that their user's aren't that anonymous -- in | fact, they very directly tell reddit what their interests | are. Like a trade magazine, reddit really doesn't have to do | any analysis at all to figure out how to map ads to the right | target audience. | | It confounds me how they haven't managed to do a much better | job of targeted advertising -- just showing woodworking tool | ads on the woodworking sub would be a dramatic improvement | over the current setup. | gkoberger wrote: | My quick Google-ing shows that they make about $100M/year | on ads. So they do this and it works decently well. | | However, ads at other social networks have evolved way past | this level of targeting (which is a bad thing, in my | opinion, but alas). Social networks like Facebook know so | much about not just your likes but the people you're | friends with and how much your income is and what stores | you've been to and what you do on Instagram and what your | age is and what state you're in and... the list goes on. | | I think most subreddits are tough to monetize. What do you | sell to r/funny or r/politics or r/sanfrancisco? What does | r/choosingbeggars want to buy? There's a few obvious ones | (diets, hobbies), but I think eeking out $100M from that is | already impressive. | | Plus, Reddit's audience is way more against ads than | Instgram/Facebook/etc. | colinmhayes wrote: | Reddit knows all the subs you subscribe to though. They | don't have to give all users of a sub the same ad, just | give everyone ads based off their most valuable | interests. | hinkley wrote: | Figure out how to make two thirds of a billion dollars off its | users, that's what. | michaelt wrote: | Well you see, they desperately need the runway to give them | time to figure out how to pay back half a billion dollars. | ryanSrich wrote: | Launder it. | ch4s3 wrote: | So they're taking financing under scrutiny from the SEC, in a | round lead by Fidelity. Where's the elicit money that they're | trying to turn legitimate? | lomereiter wrote: | For example, they could provide a hidden (and very expensive) | API for hedge funds, so that they could manipulate stock prices | more conveniently. | muttantt wrote: | Gotta pay the team of people that wholesale censor information | there | paulpauper wrote: | the mods are even worse than admins in many respects. mods for | popular subs have considerable control over what is allowed or | not. Many subs have enormous blacklists of users,domains,and | even words. As well as stupid, arbitrary content guidelines | pertaining to length, the title, the body, and other stuff. | Reddit admins have the most power but they tend to not get | involved unless a sitewide rule is broken. | kiba wrote: | That's what make reddit great. Certain reddit are heavily | moderated and you get great content. | | If you don't like how moderation done, go start your own | reddit. | bserge wrote: | No no no, first you need to find several admins. Otherwise | you'll get banned along with your subreddit lmao | SkyMarshal wrote: | _> go start your own reddit._ | | _This_ is actually what makes reddit great, that anyone | can start their own subreddit, mod it however they want, | and compete with all the others based on the merits of its | own content, community and moderation style. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Yes and no. That's great for niches but not for general, | high profile topics, a country subreddit for instance. | pageandrew wrote: | Untrue... reddit pushes some subreddits to the front page | and bans other subreddits on the basis of spreading | "disinformation". | Blikkentrekker wrote: | However the platform lacks namespaces. | | It is impossible to compete with the first one that | claims the obvious name for the subject, such as, say | r/startrek | | The competing ones also censor heavily, so all it does is | that one can now choose what particular opinions one | can't express. | | Competing on the merits of moderation style is | insignificant compared to having the most straightforward | name that everyone will try first; the subreddit with | such name will always be the largest. | pageandrew wrote: | "Great content" === what are you referring to exactly? The | left-wing propaganda that dominates the front page, passed | off as "news" or "science"? | buu700 wrote: | Offhand, /r/legaladvice, /r/AskHistorians, and | /r/AskScience stand out as being heavily moderated to the | benefit of overall content quality. I don't see how any | of those would be political propaganda (left-wing or | otherwise). | sireat wrote: | I stopped going to /r/AskHistorians because often the | only allowed answers were badly sourced. | | This is especially prevalent on events that are still | relatively recent (last 40-50 years). | | Second, it really is /r/AskHistorians ONLY, you are not | allowed to mention any personal anecdata (ie | participating in the fall of Berlin Wall etc.) | | Even worse you are not allowed to attempt to provide | official primary sources. | | There was a question on WW2 Soviet tank production and | German preparedness. I was not allowed to link in | secondary comment Hitler-Mannerheim talks where they | talked about this very issue! | | Mod reasoning: not enough context... | Blikkentrekker wrote: | I have never tried the latter two, but the first one is a | very good example of a notoriously bad advice subreddit | that almost all lawyers dislike for spreading constant | misinformation, and often even seeing people that say the | correct thing be banned by the moderators. | | There are almost no actual lawyers on that subreddit for | two reasons: A) actual lawyers would like to see | compensation for their expertise; B) in many | jurisdictions, lawyers are not allowed to give legal | advice without establishing a formal attorney-client | relationship. | buu700 wrote: | Interesting, this is the first I'm hearing about that. | Typically users will state whether or not they're | lawyers, and if so the degree to which they're familiar | with the OP's jurisdiction, and threads will often be | locked and/or littered with removed comments for the | reason "bad advice". Often, the only advice users will | receive is to go see a lawyer. | | Based on all that, it seemed pretty solid to me. I'm not | saying you're wrong, but if I had to guess it's probably | more a case of being hit-or-miss than entirely bad. Even | a minority of bad advice would stand out to a lawyer in | the same way that >=1% of wrong information in a tech | publication would stand out to most of us here, | particularly if the victims of said bad advice were in | serious situations. | | (IANAL or an active user of /r/legaladvice. I just pop in | every so often when an interesting thread hits my front | page, so whatever I'm exposed to is presumably better | quality and more actively moderated than what's average | for the sub.) | mustacheemperor wrote: | The latter two subreddits really do have excellent | content, they are worth checking out. | | /r/legaladvice is so bad there is actually a subreddit | dedicated to discussing what's posted there, | /r/bestoflegaladvice. There's more attorneys in that sub | than the actual legal advice sub, where a surprising | amount of advice is either blatantly wrong or essentially | "just tell the police everything, they'll help." | | /r/audiophile and /r/wine are two other well moderated | subreddits, where the discussion has remained relatively | focused and high quality even as the communities have | grown, because the moderators aggressively prune low- | effort and unrelated content. There was big drama, once | upon a time, when /r/audiophile banned anything headphone | related. | ryantgtg wrote: | I mod a surfing video sub, and I censor the heck out of | wakeboarding videos! Oh, the power I wield! Mwahahaha! | emodendroket wrote: | So join a different community on Reddit whose rules you like | better, or make one. Why does everyone have to allow | everything? | paulpauper wrote: | The problem is winner-take-all effects and inherent | difficulty of getting traffic to new subs. | pageandrew wrote: | Reddit pushes certain communities to the front page and | suggests them to users, and quarantines/bans other | communities. | potatoman22 wrote: | I think that once a sub attracts a large amount of readers, | it's unethical to block certain conversations. | | For large subs like /r/politics, a select few people get to | control what's fed into the eyeballs of millions of people. | And we don't even know what content wasn't allowed to be | posted, how can we trust they're unbiased? | marcinzm wrote: | >I think that once a sub attracts a large amount of | readers, it's unethical to block certain conversations. | | Why? You're free to make your own subreddit with a | different bias or no bias. No one really assumes it's | unbiased and they go there because of the bias that they | agree with. People like communities of like minded | people. | | By that logic any large scale media (tv, newspapers, | magazines, etc.) should not be allowed to have bias even | if the only reason people went there was for the bias. | pageandrew wrote: | I've been permanently banned from almost all of the top COVID | related subs for daring to discuss disallowed topics, like | the Wuhan lab, as well as expressing anti-lockdown | sentiments. My appeals have been instantly denied as well. | | I understand the idea that subreddits are user-run | communities and should be able to self-moderate, but there | are a couple problems with this: | | 1. Reddit claims to be the "front page of the internet" and | promotes many of these top subreddits with front-page | rankings, user suggestions, and push notifications. | Therefore, reddit mods have immense power in controlling the | flow of information to those who believe they're interacting | with a reputable source, and Reddit corporate has washed | their hands of any responsibility to have a say in this, | despite the profit they receive from it. | | 2. Reddit corporate certainly is willing to get involved with | subreddits, by banning or quarantining certain subs for | spreading "misinformation", but this seems selectively | applied to one particular side of these issues. Anti-lockdown | subreddits are banned for downplaying Covid, but major Covid | subreddits openly feature fear-mongering posts that overplay, | say, the risk of the virus to kids. Both are misinformation, | but one is allowed and and the other is banned. | bserge wrote: | I wrote my suicide note on my own subreddit and got banned | (site wide) for threatening violence. Err, OK, gotta find a | safer place for that. | | Sadly, as you might be able to tell, I wasn't able to do | it. It's terrifying. Also why should I die while worse | people live? Gotta do something about them before going | myself, d'uh. | lovich wrote: | Was the front page of anything ever not curated? | pageandrew wrote: | Theres a difference between curating the best recipes or | cutest cat pics, and censoring certain ideas about | pressing global health crises because they don't fit a | certain narrative. | underwater wrote: | Giving fringe viewpoints a megaphone and that kind of | validation is a terrible idea. We have seen it be abused | and fail us consistently over the last decade in both | mainstream and social media. | pageandrew wrote: | I don't trust large corporations to decide what is fringe | and what is not, because not only is it a slippery slope, | it has been abused consistently especially over the last | few years. | | Look no further than Facebook's handling of COVID | "misinformation". From the start of the pandemic, they | have enshrined the current statements of the CDC as | "information" and everything else as "misinformation". | For example, when the supposed "scientific consensus" was | that COVID-19 100% came from nature, anyone who suggested | it could have been manmade was called a conspiracy | theorist and banned from the platform. Now, a year later, | those scientists are backtracking, and some are even | admitting that they took the natural-origin stance simply | to not be associated with Trump, who was taking the other | side. That's not science. | | It was never a crazy idea. Anyone who could think for | themselves knew that. But Facebook declared themselves | the arbiter of truth, and decided that anything that | wasn't said by the CDC needed to be censored. | | When reasonable, logical ideas about important global | health challenges are considered "fringe" simply because | the authorities have declared them to be fringe, we have | a serious problem. | xfitm3 wrote: | Reddit was a bastion of free speech but it's suffered a | steep decline in quality and content. It's a toxic place | with heavy handed dark UI patterns: they've lost their | minds over there. | zpeti wrote: | This seems more like a Silicon Valley issue than a Reddit | one. And Silicon Valley generally doesn't have much | motivation to get people doing actual stuff, people sitting | at home is where the cash is. | iammisc wrote: | The nice thing is as alternative tech platforms rise up | (communities.win, ovarit.com, ruqqus, rumble, etc) we | will see a more decentralized web and these tech giants | will soon be forgotten. Hopefully, they'll take their | toxic VCs with them, but I think that may be a pipe | dream. | ryandrake wrote: | I was going to say, there are plenty of subs for pedaling | that kind of content, but looks like the major one, | r/NoNewNormal was just quarantined (ironic) today, which is | often the first step towards a total ban. Reddit's a | private company, and if they don't want that kind of | content on their site, shouldn't that be their choice? | pageandrew wrote: | The problem with the "private company" line that, yes, | they're a private company, but censorship is definitely | still bad! | | Free speech is a fundamentally protected right in the US. | From the Founder's perspective, the greatest threat to | that right was clearly and obviously government, because | what other entity could possibly have that much reach | into one's life? Up until the internet age, no one could | imagine a private company or a private individual having | the capacity to infringe upon free speech at scale. | | So, we have a Constitutional right to free speech, | protected against infringement by the government, which | is great, but there is another threat to the free flow of | information and ideas, and that is private corporations | who can now infringe upon this right at scale. And we | don't have the tools or framework to defend it, because | private companies can do what they want? Thats not good | enough for me. The situation is dire when private | companies appoint themselves to be the arbiters of truth, | because even with the best intentions, there are bound to | be mistakes, as we've already seen. And they don't all | have the best intentions. | [deleted] | CamelCaseName wrote: | > Many subs have enormous blacklists of users,domains,and | even words. | | This is the most pathetic slam against mods I have ever seen | and shows that you haven't spent two seconds considering what | you're criticizing. | khazhoux wrote: | Ironically, your comment itself also lacks any detail of | countering or clarifying information, and is itself just a | content-free slam on the person you replied to. | | Is your point that the mods don't have all these blacklists | (including of words), or that the mods do have the | blacklists but they're allowed and expected to? Is the mod | system working well, in your opinion? | emodendroket wrote: | If you try moderating one you'll see quickly why these | tools are necessary. | CamelCaseName wrote: | > Is your point that the mods don't have all these | blacklists (including of words), | | Of course moderators have blacklists. For words / phrases | / domains, they are site sanctioned through the (now) | built in function called "Automoderator". | | User blacklists are done through the built in ban | function. | | In fact, one would call these blacklists... moderation. | Something a moderator would be expected to do. | | > the mods do have the blacklists but they're allowed and | expected to? | | They are built into the site. It would logically follow | that it is both allowed and expected. | | Stepping back, I'm not sure how you can expect a forum, | any forum, to survive without moderation. | | > Is the mod system working well, in your opinion? | | This is really impossible to answer. | | From the bird's eye view, users and impressions are | growing while reddit doesn't have to pay for moderation. | A stunning success. | | From a lurker perspective, they never interact with | moderators and generally get content that has been | reviewed and determined to be within the rules, though | this may vary by subreddit. | | From an active user perspective, the system may work | well, or not well, depending on which subreddit(s) you | frequent and how you use the platform. There are many | subreddits, and moderators on some may certainly make | your life unpleasant. So... don't be active on those | subreddits. | | However, the number of active users, according to the | 90-9-1 principle is quite small, and the number of those | that ever meaningfully interact with a moderator, or even | a bot moderator, are probably a magnitude smaller than | that. | | So yes, IMO, the mod system seems to work well overall. | buu700 wrote: | I get where you're coming from, as I created | /r/relationship_advice. The existence of such blacklists, | even "enormous" ones, isn't inherently bad; it's just a | reality of dealing with an enormous flood of spam on a $0 | budget. | | That being said, blacklists on strings have 100% been | abused by both the mods and the admins. Blacklists should | be used for mitigating spam -- e.g. we'll often block a | specific attacker by blacklisting certain phrases or | regexes and then deal with the inevitable edge case false | positives by hand -- not generally for censoring ideas or | "offensive" words. | | Sure, by all means block phrases like "kill yourself" in | /r/SuicideWatch and maybe /r/relationship_advice. If a sub | is inciting violence or posting CP, there's probably a case | for banning it. But when people have to self-censor common | curse words and even the word "fart" in a general forum | like /r/tifu, clearly something is wrong. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | > _Sure, by all means block phrases like "kill yourself"_ | | Even that will often lead to the _scunthorpe problem_. | | I remember well once scouring through a post that was | rejected on a forum to finally realize it was because it | contained the phrase "tardive dyskinesia" which contained | "tard" which alone was enough to deny the post, | apparently. | buu700 wrote: | FWIW, I think it's silly that reddit has banned the term | "retard" site-wide, although I also acknowledge that the | term may be becoming broader and more offensive than I | personally understand it to be. | | In the case of "kill yourself" in /r/SuicideWatch, | though, it's such an extreme case with potentially | disastrous results that I wouldn't find it particularly | problematic. The occasional false positive is arguably a | small price to pay. | [deleted] | paxys wrote: | Funny enough paying for professional moderation will actually | help Reddit. The quality of almost every major subreddit is | trash due to mods on a power trip (or paid by a third party to | push an agenda). | [deleted] | leereeves wrote: | What makes you think reddit wouldn't just take the third | party's money to push the agenda themselves, like many media | companies do? | paxys wrote: | They would, but at least in that case they get paid for it. | screye wrote: | Reddit is simultaneously the most usable and most incompetently | run (now that tumblr is dead) social media website on the | internet. My hunch is that both phenomena are connected. | | ___________ | | The incompetent UI rehaul has meant that most users continue | staying on old.reddit.com, which makes it impossible to sunset. | This means that old.reddit.com works in the most familiar manner | of early-2000s forums without much in its way. The incredibly | late and terrible 1st party app, has meant that significantly | superior 3rd party apps (without the same large scale profit | motives) have gained prominence and cannot be pushed out. The ads | are bad enough, that they don't have a large variety of | advertisers to specifically target compatible subreddits. Imagine | having simultaneously the most most engaged users and the worst | ads. The censorship is amateurish, and gets beaten by a motivated | bunch of idiots on a regular basis. The fear of a competitor | being just around the corner (due to their own digg origin story) | makes them too scared to censor beyond an unperceivable breaking | point, lest they face mass exodus. Good teams are analytically | user obsessed. They know their target audience very well. To be | fair, worse teams ban users for what used to be the central | purpose of their platform _cough_ tumblr _cough_. | | Its public perception is tied to the Boston marathon, pedophile- | defending employees and the rise of Trump. So, there isn't | sufficient adoption among 'normies'. While that's bad for | monetization it slows down the rate of decline in content quality | and keeps it far away enough from the public eye, that you can | get away with 'better' content. | | Every feature they attempt to release (Chat, live stream, video | hosting) is done so badly that users refuse to bulge on previous | user flows. Thus, it maintains a certain purity. | | _________ | | Reddit is the most ironic victor due to the 'don't fix what's not | broken' rule. | | Reddit in 2015 was a pretty good website. The devs have been | unable to get adoption for any new feature past 2015. Thus, they | never fixed what was not broken. | | Facebook frequently messes with user flows to maximize earnings. | Most successful social media websites have figured out how to | guide their users down an 'intended' user flow such that they can | maximally profit without losing any users. Reddit doesn't know | how to do either. | | With that, I hope that Reddit's leaders never wisen up and start | making real money. The day reddit figures out monetization, will | be the day that I set forth looking for a new badly-monetized | platform. | uDontKnowMe wrote: | I think it's a common misconception that old.reddit.com is | still extremely popular. As a mod of a medium-large sub which | should skew highly towards old.reddit.com (developer-focussed | content, created at around the beginning of reddit itself), the | percent of pageviews on old.reddit.com is right now around 8%. | screye wrote: | That is really interesting. | | Is it 8% of all users, or 8% of PC users ? | renewiltord wrote: | Reddit is such an amazing platform. It is the practice of freedom | made real. Don't like the mods? Make your own subreddit. Don't | like someone? Block them and you'll never see them. Universal SSO | across thousands of communities makes it a trusted source for | reviews. | | It is akin to social networking what Craigslist is to | marketplaces. | | A magical magical place. | | I would have liked if it was easy to federate, I.e. make a new | subreddit that is just like this other subreddit and posts show | up in both. You can make multireddits with plus signs but you | can't create a new one that is just like the old one except you | don't censor the word "pumpkin" or whatever. | | Would be interesting but maybe a bad idea since it fragments the | user base. | civilized wrote: | Reddit is the only major social media company that gives you the | tools to build something resembling a human community online, yet | it seems dwarfed in popularity and clout by products like | Facebook and Twitter, which seem to me much less capable. | | But to be honest, even I don't use Reddit, although I do | sometimes search "reddit X" when I want detailed opinions on | product/service/business X. Their UX doesn't draw me in at all, | especially on mobile | 01100011 wrote: | Is it just me, or is Reddit broken in some way about 10% of the | time now? | | Overall, the site just seems janky. It used to be reliable and | fast, say 3 years ago, but now it seems to choke on the higher | load. I frequently encounter issues with comments not loading, | karma not displaying, etc. | secondcoming wrote: | Try using old.reddit.com? | fnord77 wrote: | yet reddit feels like it is dying. | | non-political subs with very obvious political agendas. | | The illusion of popularity-based ranking of articles when in | reality it is mostly curated | | Zero transparency on the moderators the big news and political | subs | | Control freak moderators on special interest subs. | | Some big investors don't seem to be able to accurately gauge what | an internet property is worth. Look at Verizon buying tumblr for | $1 billion | ausbah wrote: | reddit has always been dying to people who have been using | reddit for a long time, but don't see how that's even remotely | true | | as someone who has used reddit for 7+ years now, the culture is | definitely very different (not necessarily good) - but it has | only continued to grow in terms of users | okasaki wrote: | But it does feel like it's dying. | | For example r/linux has "679169 readers", but if you go to | the /new page you'll see it has only had 16 submissions in | the past day. | | New users are automoderated and shadowbanned to hell. There | are subreddits where the experienced users with new accounts | go and users upvote each other until they have enough karma | to post where they want. | iammisc wrote: | > but it has only continued to grow in terms of users | | That's because I make a new account everytime I'm doxxed, | banned, or censored. | | Now that you mention it, I realize that the reddit blocking, | censoring and quarantining system basically is a free way to | drive up their 'new user' count. | | What a joke of a website and a company. Cannot wait til it | dies. | Chris2048 wrote: | > it has only continued to grow in terms of users | | accounts, yes - but how many of those are users? versus bots | and marketeers? | mFixman wrote: | Every website or internet community that I've used for over a | year feels to me like it's dying, including HN. | | It's a natural reaction to change. | | I've been on Reddit for 11 years, and all your comments could | apply to 2010 Reddit as well as they apply to 2021 Reddit. At | least edgy memes on /r/atheism aren't a core part of the site | anymore. | DocTomoe wrote: | As a reddit user for more than a decade: Reddit has always been | dying (for me personally, it was the digg exodus). Everything | you describe has been around for at least 5 years. | | Reddit will die when there is something better (for the user | experience) available. Right now, I do not see a better | general-purpose forum alternative. | Chris2048 wrote: | > Reddit has always been dying | | I feel the choice of Ellen Pao as interim CEO revealed what | direction reddit was headed. Moves towards a more sanitised, | advertiser friendly Reddit - but with slap-dash choice of how | to apply the new era of censorship. | | 2014 Nov - Pao became interim CEO | | 2015 July 2nd - large sections of Reddit were set to private | to protest the dismissal of Victoria Taylor, Reddit's | director of talent, known for co-ordinating the Ask Me | Anything interviews | | 2015 Jun/July - Pao was the subject of criticism and | harassment by Reddit users after five Reddit communities | (subreddits) were banned for harassment and Reddit's director | of talent was fired | | 2015 Aug 13th - "Watch reddit Die" was Created | | I can't help feel that there is a trend of selling of online | communities as "assets" to commercial buyers that have | opposite incentive to the members of that community - just | look at StackOverflow. The problem is that websites come to | own the "commons" they inspire, and then sell it off as if | the community are happy to work for free. We need stronger | community data-rights; like a GPL for website content. | dcolkitt wrote: | The gems on Reddit are almost all small subreddits with a | community feel. I'd be virtually certain that its high user | engagement is primarily driven by users who've matched into | smaller subreddits that closely align with their interests. The | big, default subreddits are largely wastelands. | | But Reddit the platform seems to entirely ignore this dynamic. | New users are dropped into the default subreddits, and there's | very little tooling or onramps to help them find small | interest-matching subs. | mdoms wrote: | I hear this a lot but I've never found a good small subreddit | either. Perhaps there's a discoverability problem but I'll be | damned if I can find one of these mythical small subreddits | with a great community I keep hearing about. | | For example I love Formula 1. But the /r/formula1 subreddit | (1.6 million subscribers) is absolute unmitigated trash. | There are decent articles posted there, but the comments are | a total wasteland of low-effort memes, regurgitated jokes and | total morons with zero understanding of the sport. So where | do I go for F1 content? How do I find one of these supposed | small subs with good communities? | feudalism wrote: | reddit should just be killed off at this point. The only good | thing about it are the smaller subreddits. The self-proclaimed | "front page of the internet" has become the "cesspool of the | internet" catering to the lowest common denominator of people | out there. Tiktoks, tweets, fabricated AITA posts and more of | the low brow variety abound. | | reddit (in general) has a clear and obvious political/social | agenda apparent to anybody with a functioning brain. | pm90 wrote: | > The company will use the new funds to improve product features, | focusing on how to make it easier for newcomers to explore and | quickly understand the site, Mr. Huffman said. Reddit is also | enhancing its video products with an eye toward more advertising. | And the company is building its self-service advertising system, | which could help appeal to small and medium-size business | marketers. | | > Reddit is also focused on expanding internationally. Most of | the site is U.S.-centric, Mr. Huffman said -- something he hopes | to change. | | When it comes to advertising, other platforms offer a much more | lucrative user base. Reddit users aren't worth very much to | advertisers. International users will probably be worth even | less. And there is no guarantee that Reddit would hit it off with | an international audience. | | In short, I just don't see them doing well if they go public. | thinkingemote wrote: | Reddit is a marketeers dream. Every corporation, product, game, | movie studio and consumer device has a big team dedicated to | using Reddit for free. Submissions memes and comments are posted | by the teams, often out in the open. Reddit gets no income from | this advertising. | | If Reddit were to start looking at charging for these, the | platform might change drastically. I'm not sure how, however. | wintermutestwin wrote: | The more Reddit gets infected by ads, the less value the | content will provide. Advertising is diametrically opposed to | information sharing. | xyzzy21 wrote: | I was done with Reddit 3 years ago. I was on Reddit the first | week they existed. No longer of any value! | weavie wrote: | So, pretend you are in charge of spending $410 million dollars at | Reddit. What would you spend it on? | | From my amateur perspective I've got, | | 2 web devs, 1 backend engineer, 3 devops. Pay them very | generously and that's $1.2 million spent. | | I have no idea what I would do with the rest.. | jonwinstanley wrote: | Three devops to run a website in the top 25 globally? That | would be very impressive! | weavie wrote: | I'm assuming they already have a load working for them, in my | game I'm just thinking about what they could do on top of | what they already have... | Barrin92 wrote: | Instagram and Whatsapp had very small teams even with | hundreds of millions of users. Reddit has more features but | honestly the amount of money pumped in is crazy given that | it's well, basically a collection of web forums. | | Remember the point of a company is to make money for the | people that invest in it, being in the top 25 globally | doesn't mean that much if you need to take half a billion in | cash 15 years into your existence. it's a weird narrative for | a tech company. | [deleted] | useful wrote: | Free food to keep people in the office and a giant building in | the tenderloin with just enough security gaurds to keep your | developers safe inside but unable to safely leave. | | also money for rubber ducks | MattGaiser wrote: | You need a mobile team, you need a spam team (or 10), you need | people working on a portal for advertisers and the analytics | they need, need more than 3 devops for full 24/7 coverage, etc. | keanebean86 wrote: | Maybe they finally upgrade the 486sx based server everything | runs on? | | But seriously they could invest in some content | discovery/recommendation features. There are probably a lot of | small subreddits that go unnoticed by people that just check | /all or /popular. | | Their video player needs some major work. | | They could decentralize the site. Shard off subreddits by some | category system. The homepage would then be an aggregation of | the shards. If the main site is down you can potentially still | reach some shards. | | Of course they would still have a ton of money left over. With | a stack this high they could convert the office heater to run | directly off cash for a few years. | davewritescode wrote: | As an amateur you probably don't have enough context to know, | but what you see on a superficial level of the product is | probably about < 10% of the total engineering effort. | | Reddit awards, payments, ad analytics, SRE is probably 100+ | engineers right there without even talking about the core | experience, mobile app and security folks. | | The platforms that run 8 figure companies need tons of | redundancy in both application code/infrastructure and people. | weavie wrote: | > As an amateur you probably don't have enough context to | know, | | For sure, hence my question! | covercash wrote: | Maybe a Reddit coin? Use that money to mine it and then seed | the Reddit ecosystem at first with coin upvotes/awards, build a | merch market for subreddit specific merch, allow advertisers to | list items on the marketplace funneling sales there from Reddit | ads/promoted posts, original content -> NFT... | | I don't know the details but I think the core base of Reddit | would be into a project like that. | zozbot234 wrote: | They actually tried that in the past and it wasn't going | anywhere, so they nixed it. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | Reddit Coins are still a thing - I have a Gold subscription | as well. | kristofferR wrote: | https://www.coindesk.com/reddit-rolls-with-arbitrum-to- | scale... | Chris2048 wrote: | PR and sales. Always PR and sales. | okprod wrote: | They've also been hiring ML | dcolkitt wrote: | The biggest problem is that their revenue per user is | atrociously low compared to other social platforms. That money | should be thrown at poaching as much ads talent as possible | from Facebook or Twitter. | blagie wrote: | The problem is that throwing money rarely leads to the | outcome desired. | | I would know how to run a high-quality reddit on $5M/year, | and perhaps as much as $20M. I would not know how to run a | high-quality reddit on $100M/year. | | The term is 'overcapitalized.' | | At some scale, people focus on climbing corporate ladders | over the core business, on pet projects, and communications | becomes a bottleneck (and the number of potential links grows | as a square law with the number of people). | | The right scale depends on the complexity of the product. A | car requires an army to engineer and produce. | | Reddit? That benefits from a small team, where people can | holistically understand the whole system, and everyone | involved. That's at most 20 SWEs. | weird-eye-issue wrote: | They need more than that for the sole purpose of making the | mobile website experience as horrible as possible (and | constantly iterating to make it worse and worse) | DanTheManPR wrote: | How else are you going to get people to download the app? | weird-eye-issue wrote: | Ironically it just made me use Boost (a third party app). | So I see absolutely zero Reddit ads unlike if I was using | their mobile site... | screye wrote: | Outside of what you listed: (not all will enhance the | experience. Dark patterns also make money) | | Data Scientist who can use seasonal and news virality patterns | to predict hourly load and load balancing | | Data Scientist for Ads targeting by subreddit | | CDN person to improve content delivery and caching | | A person to build a half-decent video player and native | integration of widgets/content from commonly linked websites | | Data Scientist that provides a more curated experience to first | time visitors. Shadow profiles exist. Or just a 1st visit 10 | sec poll. | thehappypm wrote: | I would invest in B2B. Reddit should have just as much of an | easy-to-use marketing suite like Facebook or Google have. A | team of 10 engineers can do that in a year, then the rest of | the money goes to sales. | 3pt14159 wrote: | I'm 60% you're joking, but on the chance you're not. | | You couldn't keep Reddit going with 10x that team. Just the | tooling around keeping up with GDPR regulations and Trust & | Safety alone could easily eat $10m a year. | SkyMarshal wrote: | Basically this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28157551 | | Build an integrated market, initially aimed at competing with | Craigslist, and maybe expanded to target other markets later | (Ebay, etsy, etc). Craigslist first because its similarly | simple UI and design is the easiest to recreate within Reddit. | | There's tons of subreddits for connecting buyers and sellers of | niche goods, but the actual buying and selling has to happen | elsewhere. It's stupid that Reddit hasn't capitalized on that | yet. | xeonoex wrote: | Employees cost more than just their salary, but I see your | point. So far, their attempts to make reddit more profitable | have made the user experience terrible. "New" reddit is way | worse than old, and is full of nagging you to use the app on | mobile, to the point where you can't even view the content. | I've never used the official reddit app because I've heard it's | terrible, and there are many great alternatives. | | I really don't know what they should do with the money other | than make reddit more reliable. It was down last night. The | value of reddit is the users/community. Technically, it's a | modern message board/link aggregator. There are already many | clones. | hbosch wrote: | >So, pretend you are in charge of spending $410 million dollars | at Reddit. What would you spend it on? | | Most of it probably goes straight to AWS. | morpheos137 wrote: | Does reddit really use aws for hosting, cds? | imnotreallynew wrote: | Something that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the | massive problem Reddit has regarding large scale bot networks. | | Reddit allows for unlimited account creation and has extremely | poor, if any, detection algorithms. Additionally, its trivial to | stream and analyze the entirety of Reddit comments and posts in | real time (check out PRAW if you like Python). | | Networks pushing COVID narratives and crypto frauds are probably | the worst offenders. Here's an example I just came across in | /r/miami: | https://reddit.com/r/Miami/comments/p1z6a7/have_you_guys_see.... | The networks pushing certain COVID narratives are evening more | troubling as, unlike crypto, im not sure what the end game is or | who is controlling those networks. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > Reddit allows for unlimited account creation and has | extremely poor, if any, detection algorithms. | | Why don't they put some CAPTCHAs? They have no CAPTCHAs | anywhere in account creation + post first time comment + first | time thread + first time direct message? | handmodel wrote: | I wouldn't say this isn't a problem at all but the fact that | subs have mods which have a lot of power seems to be very | effective. | | I don't spend that much time on reddit as a whole - but | frequent about 5-7 subs every single day. These are mostly | medium sized subs and none of them have a problem of spam. And | I'm on them enough that it is by far the social media/news site | I interact with the most. | teslaberry wrote: | in 10 years time reddit will barely exist if at all. people | forget myspace and other garbage like it. | | reddit's financial structure is a giant black hole that exists to | push stealth advertising that gets less and less competitive with | youtube and facebook every hour. | Chris2048 wrote: | How do they come up with this? | | Is the long death of reddit, really the TikTok-isation of reddit | into yet another vapid commercial meh-space? | | Will this actually succeed, or is this the pump before the dump? | gruez wrote: | > How do they come up with this? | | You mean the valuation? It's a simple formula of ([money | raised] / [shares issued]) * [total shares outstanding] | Chris2048 wrote: | Just a linear regress on what they raised so far? | | Ok, fair enough. feels overvalued though. | HWR_14 wrote: | No, gruez was talking about how to take the new cash | infusion and turn it into market cap. Literally just price | of new share times share outstanding. You wanted to know | how they decided on the market cap to accept money for. | It's a totally different, complex, and non-public process. | themanmaran wrote: | I'm honestly surprised to learn that Reddit is still VC | dependant. | | Seems strange to me that a 16 year old company still isn't self | sustaining. | closeparen wrote: | Reddit's user base is poor and disaffected young men. Those | might be valuable eyeballs to a warlord or a revolutionary but | corporate America isn't buying. | allochthon wrote: | I used to have a similar impression. Gradually my view has | changed. I now see it as one of the best sources of | information on the internet on specific topics. | closeparen wrote: | The question for an advertising business is how much do the | people interested in those topics spend, and how hard are | they to reach elsewhere. | MattGaiser wrote: | Anonymity really hurts profits. | xtracto wrote: | Now that they are setting up Cryptocurrencies in some | subreddits (donuts in r/ethtrader and a couple of others that I | don't recall right now) they should experiment with reddits | where you initially "pay" for posting, commenting, up/down | voting. Then somehow if your post gets upvoted or is heavily | commented on, you get some of those tokens (shared revenue) as | well as moderators in the subreddits that adopt that dynamic. | | It's akin to the "payment per Email" (hashcash as spam | prevention) idea that a lot of us have yearned for a long time, | which would deter spammers and make people think twice before | commenting, so maybe it would increase the content quality. | | It would be an interesting experiment. | majormajor wrote: | The cost is fascinating. Is the value of a single place for all | these conversations that much higher than having a bunch of | independent forums scattered across the web? For users, there's | a high discovery value... but at the cost of apparently far | more expense running the site than has been able to be recouped | yet. | | Curious to see that even where centralization _hasn 't_ | financially paid off, people are willing to keep tossing money | at the dream of it paying off one day after 16 years. | zozbot234 wrote: | > Is the value of a single place for all these conversations | that much higher than having a bunch of independent forums | scattered across the web? | | The problem with "independent forums scattered across the | web" is that they make discovery (of users and service | instances) harder. There are ways around this, like the | Fediverse and SOLID standards, but most bulletin-board-like | forums do not support them as of yet out of the box. | adventured wrote: | It is strange. The obvious solution to Reddit's revenue problem | was to build a marketplace into the foundation of the network, | and they should have done that more than a decade ago. | | Etsy, eBay, FB Market, Craigslist, Fiverr, OnlyFans (which was | built-up by riding on social media propagation, taking | advantage of services like Reddit), and 400 other various types | of online markets. There's no reason Reddit could not have have | built something substantial in the ecommerce platform space | over the years. Taking a small cut from transactions would have | eliminated their advertising dependency. Reddit's karma also | lends itself easily to forming an ecommerce trust network via | transaction feedback, which would form the backbone of buying | and selling products or services on there. Reddit figured out | to absorb image hosting away from eg Imgur (which also | piggybacked off of Reddit to then form a competing social | network), and they didn't figure out to do the same thing in | the ecommerce space, despite how obvious it was. | twobitshifter wrote: | Reddit even has communities where sales are made like | r/MechanicalKeyboards and those communities use karma and | transaction tracking to rank sellers - the communities have | done the proof of concept for them. | screye wrote: | > build a marketplace into the foundation of the network | | I love this. | hbosch wrote: | Reddit seems to me like a very hard product to monetize. As a | daily user I get a ton of milage out of Reddit Enhancement | Suite (desktop) and Apollo (iOS), in combination with typical | ad-blockers. Combine that with the low friction of sign up | (disposable e-mails allowed, no confirmation needed, sitewide | bans rare) _and_ the tacit allowance of "objectionable" | content (porn, gore, hate speech, harassment, etc.)... you | don't really have fertile ground for meaningful engagement from | an advertiser perspective. | | Not only that, but if Reddit were to strongly disallow any or | all of the above we have seen how EASY it is to simply clone | the tech and re-host. There have been stories about certain | communities being exiled from Reddit only to spring up just as | quickly elsewhere with more or less the same exact user | experience... | zozbot234 wrote: | > As a daily user I get a ton of milage out of Reddit | Enhancement Suite (desktop) and Apollo (iOS), in combination | with typical ad-blockers. | | Most users aren't going to do this. Really, the reddit folks | should just go all-in on tailoring their official apps | towards the most casual, highly "engaged" content consumers, | and target most of their monetization towards that kind of | user. As a bonus, make it trivially easy to post casual | content directly from the app. Who cares about | "objectionable" content when they'll have so many cat | pictures and cute/funny memes to run their ads next to. | hinkley wrote: | But every time you take more money you have to make more | money. It's like they're trying to give themselves permission | to do things they haven't dared to do so far. | trts wrote: | > if Reddit were to strongly disallow any or all of the above | we have seen how EASY it is to simply clone the tech and re- | host | | this seems doubtful to me. Reddit has tons of legendary | threads, AMAs and is its own library of content at this | point, similar to YouTube. Sure the tech could be replicated | but the value is all in the content it generated. | wintermutestwin wrote: | Maybe that points to a way they could make $: curate and | make anthologies of the actually valuable content. | /r/askhistorians content could be turned into a few history | books. | | Of course, then people might start looking at the fact that | they are giving away valuable property to Reddit in return | for access to a simple forum site... | BeFlatXIII wrote: | There are plenty of Reddit archiving and mirroring | services. Pay one of those for a database dump and you're | off to the races (copyright issues be damned) | [deleted] | swarnie_ wrote: | Not sure how Reddit is worth that much... Are the 50 power mods | in charge of 90% of the top subs selling access to state | propaganda departments? Actually don't answer that, its painfully | obvious. | | $ per user revenue is pathetic compared to most social media | platforms. | shantnutiwari wrote: | As someone who tried to advertise on reddit (though it was > 1-2 | years ago, so things may have changed)-- Reddit, along with | Twitter, is very advertiser unfriendly. And Im not just talking | about the users. | | I literally couldnt give them my money. I wanted to target a | specific subreddit, but couldnt buy any impressions on it for 3 | months. The app kept forcing me to advertise on /all, or all | technology reddits, which wasnt what I wanted. I did buy $10 of | ads, got zero clicks, surprise surprise. | | The thing was hard to setup, hard to run, hard to measure, not to | mention, advertisers get treated like any other account. I was | shadow banned because I was linking to one domain, and reddit | considered me a spammer. But I was like, that *is* the whole | purpose of advertising. I was forced to post a few cat pictures, | just so I could run my ads. | | Never again. | | I note they have since revamped their ad site-- now there is a | new site, but you have to reregister to run ads, and I dont want | the hassle. | | Yes, everyone hates ads, but thats how free sites make money. | | Some redditors were hostile to ads, but the number isnt that big. | Most users were indifferent. | | Such an ad-hostile company, I wonder how they make money. | wintermutestwin wrote: | >Yes, everyone hates ads, but thats how free sites make money. | | Maybe a simple user forum site doesn't need to make mega | valuation levels of money. Maybe it, and other low effort sites | like Facecrook and Twatter, should be run as public benefit | corps. These companies aren't selling state of the art tech | here - why do they need to be such money makers?? | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | If they were making money, they wouldn't have to keep taking VC | money, and further diluting their ownership. | entangledqubit wrote: | I tried it recently (< 2 months ago) and the experience wasn't | too bad. This was the first real ad "campaign" I had ever set | up. The targeted group was pretty niche and while Reddit | suggested going broader, I was able to stick with the | subreddits that I considered relevant. | | The most annoying part was the rather opaque period between | launching, approving, and actually running the ad. The first | real confirmation I had that things were working was a bill. | dcolkitt wrote: | On a visitor perspective, this seems undervalued. This is a 50% | or more discount to the market-cap/unique visitor ratio of | Twitter, Snap, and Facebook.[1] And all the stats I've seen | indicate much higher user engagement and time on site for Reddit | compared to the other social platforms. | | The biggest issue is of course that their monetization is | horrible. Like 95% lower per user than the other socials.[2] So | the real question an investor should ask is whether this is | fixable? Or is there something intrinsic to Reddit traffic that | makes it difficult to monetize? Either way, Reddit should be | throwing an insane amount of money and equity to get a Sheryl | Sandberg like executive with a track record of juicing | monetization. | | [1]https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/1/21754984/reddit-dau- | daily... [2]https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/reddit-users-are-the- | least-v... | nickthemagicman wrote: | User Engagement is inversely correlated to monetization. | PEJOE wrote: | Can you please provide more evidence to support this claim? | From where I'm sitting, TikTok's and Instagram's businesses | would disagree strongly. | nickthemagicman wrote: | That wasn't a scientific statement. Just a theory about | Reddit. I personally like Reddit because it's not shoving | ad's in your face constantly and I think others do as well. | Apologies for presenting it without labelling it as a | theory. I would edit it now if I could. | thefounder wrote: | If you use digg as reference the long term outlook of reddit is | not that bright. | Graffur wrote: | Digg closed before it was defeated really. I can't remember | if it was the v3 or v4 that caused the migration but they | didn't even try to roll back... or just stick with their new | plan. They just gave up it seems. | ryantgtg wrote: | Is the latest iteration of Digg a totally different entity or | something? I have coworkers who use digg a ton - doesn't seem | dead to me. | ruined wrote: | digg died fifteen years ago. clearly a lot has changed, and | the mistakes that killed digg have not been made. | | and i think reddit is beyond the point at which a digg-style | fuckup could kill them. at worst you might see cadres of | ideological users depart for something like lemmy, which is | already happening to an extent, but there is a lot of space | to flee internally, so most users don't feel the pressure. | and diffusion to federated media is in the future for every | mass audience. reddit has such a huge and active userbase it | will dominate for the foreseeable future. | lovich wrote: | whats lemmy? Googling around all I found was articles about | the motorhead singer and some weird dead forum from the | 2000s about lemmy koopa | Buttons840 wrote: | Probably https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy | Shorel wrote: | The new HTML layout and the obnoxious mobile website are | worse than what killed Digg, IMO. | | The difference is that when Digg made their mistakes, | Reddit was there for the taking. | | Nowadays, there's no alternative to Reddit. All the new | sites appear to be focused on hateful communities banned | from Reddit, and that will never attract the mainstream. | saisundar wrote: | Reddit currently supports many third party freemium clients ( | Ala Twitter 2012). These third party apps offer a no ad | experience too. Unsure how much revenue reddit shares with | these apps though. | | It helps with growth(more options for users to be on reddit) , | but definitely hurts ad inventory, ad targeting insights etc. | SaltySolomon wrote: | Thats less than 0.5% of traffic tho, most of it is from the | official apps nowerdays. | snuxoll wrote: | I think this is likely why Reddit has heavily pushed direct | revenue with an expansion of awards available (cheapest ones | are 50 coins now), in addition to the continued ad-free | option with a premium subscription. | brianwawok wrote: | They will eventually shut these down to increase ad views, | just like twitter | edoceo wrote: | > higher user engagement | | It's the dark patterns and having to reload pages multiple | times to finally see the content. | | > and time on site | | Again, break your site so addicts have to try harder to get | their dopamine hit | | The reddit "engagement" numbers are false. | TchoBeer wrote: | If I'm wrong GP can correct me, but I think "engagement" | means commenting/posting/voting, just viewing a page doesn't | count as engagement. | edoceo wrote: | View page: Something went wrong, refresh, refresh, scrolls, | clicks load more, scroll, upvote. | | Results: longer time and the user will now actually engage, | because they had to "work" to get there. | | Complete dark-pattern to "juke the stats". And it's too | complicated for their stupid investors to understand why | the numbers are bullshit. | TchoBeer wrote: | Do you have any data to suggest that a more frustrating | viewing experience boosts engagement? Intuitively it | should do the opposite. | dilap wrote: | And of course the site will just get worse and worse, but | continue onward, because its value is in the audience, and it | takes a lot to screw up that momentum. | | (What a blessing that HN isn't run to make a profit.) | ren_engineer wrote: | Reddit userbase is way more hostile to ads on average, more | block ads, a lot of the content is non-advertiser friendly, | they have less information on their audience for targeting, | etc. | | Reddit is more forum than social network, they'll need to get | creative to make more revenue from users. Winning strategy for | them might be to try and get more older users who don't care | about ads so much and have lots of money | zozbot234 wrote: | > Reddit is more forum than social network | | Reddit is mostly cat pictures and funny memes at scale, even | calling it a "forum" is a stretch. More like a glorified | image board. | SkyPuncher wrote: | Two specific feeds, /r/popular and /r/all, are a lot of | this. | | There are a lot of good niche communities that have deep, | meaningful conversation on Reddit. | s5300 wrote: | He is clearly unaware of /r/cannedsardines | 13415 wrote: | I've started to add +Reddit in Google searches to obtain | useful information when I need to know something. With all | those fake top 10 list sites and paid reviews showing up in | searches, Reddit is pretty much the only place left for | getting reliable product information, for example. There | are friendly and knowledgeable subreddits about all kinds | of topics. | timdev2 wrote: | I'm not sure I understand your taxonomy. In my mind, an | image board is a type of forum (generally anonymous and | ephemeral). Reddit is more like a forum than a typical | forum than popular imageboards, since users have long-lived | identities and posts are permanent by default. | | As far as "most cat pictures and memes", maybe it is, by | volume. But that doesn't diminish the substantial corpus of | more substantive, forum-like, discussion hosted on the | site. | leereeves wrote: | > Winning strategy for them might be to try and get more | older users who don't care about ads so much and have lots of | money | | Won't be easy getting older users on a site where "boomer" is | a slur. | xkjkls wrote: | Also reddit itself gives a huge number of ways for | advertisers to access the reddit audience without paying for | it. | colinmhayes wrote: | I think this is reddit's biggest issue. Astroturfing is | more effective than advertising and it's cheaper too. | gruez wrote: | >Winning strategy for them might be to try and get more older | users who don't care about ads so much and have lots of money | | Isn't the most sought-after demographic 18-35 because they | have the most disposable income? Afterwards disposable income | drops off because of kids and/or retirement. | wil421 wrote: | Not by a long shot. Boomers are still the highest in | spending[1]. I was a broke college student forever and | somewhat broke for the years or so after (no loans I worked | through college). I'm in the 30-40 range with kids and I | spend much more than my twenties. | | Lots of college students are spending their parents money | for these kinds of things. | | [1] https://resources.datadrivenmarketing.equifax.com/dyks- | equif... | nradov wrote: | While older consumers do have more money to spend, most | advertisers prefer to target younger consumers. The | thinking is that boomers already have established brand | preferences and spending patterns so it's much harder to | convert them into new customers. | xkjkls wrote: | This is only really true for television advertising, | since most of it is brand building, instead of "click | here and buy now" online. | spfzero wrote: | That demographic is most sought-after by advertisers | because it is the easiest to influence. The ads work better | on them. | | For whatever reason, maybe just because they've seen more | ads, older demographics are harder to reach. | NationalPark wrote: | Is it actually true that online ads work better (more | conversions?) on that demographic? How do you separate | the confounding factor of the effect of age and income on | preferences? | paulpauper wrote: | I don't think Reddit will ever scale as well as something like | Facebook . The bigger Reddit gets, the less usable it becomes | due to subs becoming too crowded. | setr wrote: | The whole point of reddit is that the crowding issue is self- | correcting -- you just move to a new sub. I like to envision | it as a malthusian catastrophe -- as the population starts | reaching capacity limits, people start grumbling more and | more.. until suddenly they far overshoot the capacity, and | leave en-masse to new subs. In one fell swoop, the original | sub is left near-empty, and out of the many new subs created | in that instant, a few survive with healthy populations. | paulpauper wrote: | I have been on reddit a long time and I have never seen a | popular sub ever die unless it gets banned by admins. | Splinter subs emerge but the original one remains popular | too | spfzero wrote: | The long-tail subs will never get too crowded. If you have | found a niche where like-minded people hang out, there will | never be a whole lot more of them, and however many more | there are, it's a positive. | | I'm thinking vintageaudio, lv426, subs like that. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | Your comments make perfect sense in light of the fact that | Reddit is the world's largest free porn site, with just enough | "social" sprinkled on top to keep you engaged between wanks. | slugiscool99 wrote: | The only information I could find claims that about 22% of | reddit is NSFW. They calculated the percentage of NSFW | subreddits with >100k subscribers. [1] | | That's far from a perfect way to measure this, but it's | around the statistic that 30% of the internet is porn. My | intuition tells me Reddit probably reflects the internet as a | whole pretty well. | | [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/f94j0y/ | oc_... | listenallyall wrote: | Doesn't matter the percentage of subreddits (i.e. counting | every qualifying subreddit equally), what is the percentage | of eyeballs? And don't you think lots of people view porn | subreddits without subscribing? | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | Well, just for the record, that doesn't invalidate what I | said. I'm not concerned with what PERCENTAGE is porn. It | still is the largest, most-easily-accessible, most | searchable, free porn site. And also for the record, yes, I | HATE that Reddit (and Twitter, et. al.) allow full-on NSFW | content along with all the rest. | michaelbuckbee wrote: | You asked if there was "something intrinsic to Reddit traffic | that makes it difficult to monetize?" and the answer is: Yes, | they're far less invasive than the other platforms you | mentioned. | | Just at a very high level: | | - no offsite tracking (so no retargeting - the follow you | around the internet ads) | | - no separate ad network (you can't buy ads on Reddit that show | up on 3rd party sites) | | - limits on how granular targeting can be (it's by sub-reddit | but they exclude many based on size+sensitivity) | | - no demographic targeting (you can't pitch your product to | males 18-35) | | - no fine grained geographic targeting (lowest they go is major | metro areas of millions of people) | subpixel wrote: | This seems likely to change. | underwater wrote: | And now they're taking huge amounts of money, which means | they need to succeed as an advertising company, which means | they'll start doing many of those things. | initplus wrote: | One thing that they do not seem to be taking advantage of is | how specialized many of their communities are. It seems primed | for letting advertisers target to specific audiences, but as a | user I don't really feel like the ads I get are targeted to | what I read at all? Maybe I am uninformed but it seems like an | advertising goldmine that hasn't been taken advantage of. | | If you are a PC components retailer, users of /r/buildapc seems | like an ideal audience to target for advertising. Camera | retailer, where better than /r/photography? Cookware - | advertise in /r/cooking. Repeat ad infinitum across every niche | interest on the site. | | They should be able to enable advertisers to do really | effective targeting of campaigns. Is this not possible with | their current ad tools, or are they not selling the | capabilities to advertisers well enough? Or is there not | actually that much money in targeted ads, is all the money in | generic ads like Coca-Cola & cars? | [deleted] | shuntress wrote: | If you will suffer a brief crash course on ad terminology, | you are describing "placements". A placement with an ad in it | shown to a user is called an "impression". | | I agree that advertisers would pay reddit more for better ad | space (also called "inventory") but that doesn't just happen | automatically. | | Right now, I would assume they are integrating with some | third party ad network and probably use fairly generic | targeting information. The cost in time and money to either | deepen that integration or rip it out and make a custom ad | network is probably significant. | bwship wrote: | Well they have the money part of that equation solved, at | least for a while. How quickly can one blow through $410 | million? 18 months? | yissp wrote: | I just checked /r/linux, which I browse on occasion, and the | three sponsored posts I saw on the front page were for Intel | vPro, Adobe Creative Cloud, and Google Chromebooks. Those all | seem at least reasonably relevant. | Dah00n wrote: | Really? I'd say they are closer to unreasonably irrelevant. | Maybe I could stretch myself to see a Chomebook being | interesting and relevant. To me seeing the other two would | make me look negatively on the brands/products. If those | who sees an add get nothing out of it except wasted time | I'd say they are spam. Those sound like 100% spam to me in | /r/linux. | sgerenser wrote: | Agreed, Adobe creative cloud doesn't even run on Linux! | cwkoss wrote: | Reddit should charge for all commercial posts. It would clean | up spam and generate revenue. | | Make a special class of commercial account, include some | 'verification' badge thingy. Let subreddits ban all | commercial content, unpaid commercial content, or leave open | (for commercial-specific subs). | | Let mods profit share in commercial posts. (And fix the | moderator system so "first to register controls the sub" is | no longer the case) | hutzlibu wrote: | "And fix the moderator system so "first to register | controls the sub" is no longer the case" | | Suggestions? | | This is a complex proplem. | NortySpock wrote: | "the top 20 most upvoted comments in the subreddit within | the last year, with the user having more than X posts per | year in the subreddit, Y karma per post and more than | 1000 characters per post, are invited to become | moderators" | | Only really works for the in-depth subreddits, I guess | it's not going to get you far on image or other media- | based subreddits... | wintermutestwin wrote: | Sounds like a great way to prod those specialized communities | to bail to the next diggredditetc. | | People are going to those specialized communities to get real | information from real users, not lies and misinformation (ads | and marketing). | paulcole wrote: | >People are going to those specialized communities to get | real information from real users, not lies and | misinformation (ads and marketing). | | Those specialized communities will cease to exist without | something funding them. | | Either users get ready to get out their wallets or get used | to ads and marketing (which are not wholly lies and | misinformation). And more importantly remember it's | Reddit's choice how users pay, not the end users. | colinmhayes wrote: | I'm not sure that's true. No one is paying the moderators | currently. It's not like hosting costs of a forum are | that high. Not that difficult to migrate all your users | to a competing service if the community is un happy with | the monetization scheme. | warning26 wrote: | Eh, I'd say most of the hardcore Reddit users have both | old.reddit as well as an Ad Blocker, so I'm guessing that | slightly better ad configuration tools wouldn't adversely | impact the longtime users too much. | | As for other users, they are already seeing incredibly | random and irrelevant ads. Seeing actual photography themed | ads on a photography themed forum doesn't seem that bad IMO | (provided that they are clearly marked as ads, of course.) | tootie wrote: | I think the problem is that reddit culture is virulently | anti-consumerist and throw a fit every time they see an ad. | I'll bet they get terrible conversion rates. | l72 wrote: | I tried to advertise a product to a very niche group on | reddit. I just wanted to select 4 specific sub-reddits and | advertise to anyone that was a member or viewed that reddit. | | For some reason, reddit wouldn't let me advertise to 3 of the | 4, and the 1 that they did let me advertise was very low | volume (less than 100 members). I couldn't even get reddit to | show a single ad, let alone have anyone click on it. | | Facebook brought in way more traffic, and some of it did | convert, but I feel like my advertising costs were too high | there, since you can only specify more general interests. It | seems like reddit, had their advertising platform actually | worked, would have been the perfect place for me. | Doctor_Fegg wrote: | Yes, this. Google and Facebook make it super easy to | advertise. Whenever I've tried to advertise on Reddit, | nothing shows up, I have no idea why, and the advertising | UI gives me no clues. | jdavis703 wrote: | Those publicly traded social media sites are valued at that | rate by the public. It's possible that VC's are: | | 1) Valuing the company in the hopes of making a profit on the | IPO 2) More conservative than public markets | heywintermute wrote: | >Or is there something intrinsic to Reddit traffic that makes | it difficult to monetize? | | Reddit is also home to an enormous amount of porn and nsfw | content in general which probably hurts this. They only just | started preventing sexually explicit subreddits/content from | appearing on r/all six months ago[0] | | https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/lhnvok/removing_... | f6v wrote: | It's not going to be Tumblr all over again if they choose to | ban it. But I wonder how many people use Reddit just for | nsfw. | NationalPark wrote: | I wonder if their problem is that the majority of their | traffic is unregistered users looking at NSFW subreddits. | So they may not actually have that many users they could | monetize in the first place. | vmception wrote: | to me, this seems like an opportunity for new advertisers | that don't care about "their brand showing up next to porn" | | is there a market rational reason why this hasn't occurred, | or are the primary places that happen to also have adult | content just assuming advertisers won't use their platform | | sure, big fortune 500 ad spends are lucrative, but so is the | aggregate of every single half baked idea that has to test | the waters with targeted ads | paxys wrote: | There is a LOT standing in the way of monetization for Reddit: | | - younger user base (so less disposable income) | | - loose concept of user identity, so can't tailor ads | | - more corpoarate and mainstream advertisers tend to stay away | due to the nature of the community and content shared | | - primary usage is on web rather than mobile apps | | All of these are fixable, but the question is can they do so | without alienating their use base. | math-dev wrote: | I agree with most of what you say, but I thought most of the | usage was now on the mobile app? | | By most, I mean the vast majority (hence my perplexion and | need to comment and confirm my understanding) | CodesInChaos wrote: | Reddit is increasingly forcing mobile users into the app, or to | at least make an account. Presumably to improve monetization. | Scoundreller wrote: | And tracking/notifications. Which is of course why I don't | install it. | CodesInChaos wrote: | Tracking and driving engagement via notifications are some | of the most important reasons why app users can be | monetized better than anonymous web users (user sees more | ads if they're spending more time, and tracking allows | better targeted and thus higher paying ads) | kjax wrote: | There's another big factor with mobile app users: it's | much harder to block ads in a mobile app. | CodesInChaos wrote: | Don't most users already use mobile browsers (e.g. | chrome) which don't support extensions and thus ad | blockers? | Scoundreller wrote: | Firefox on iOS supports strict ad blocking. It's not as | good as some of the purpose-built extensions on desktop, | but it mostly does the job. | mateo411 wrote: | It's easier to track in the app because of the mobile | advertising identifier. | tomjen3 wrote: | That doesn't seem to be the case any more, as nearly | everybody opts out of that on iOS. | ska wrote: | > And all the stats I've seen indicate much higher user | engagement and time on site for Reddit compared to the other | social platforms. | | >The biggest issue is of course that their monetization is | horrible. | | It's possible that these two things are pretty tightly linked. | Allower wrote: | And then you would see a mass exodus of users.. | dougSF70 wrote: | Perhaps traffic has a reciprocal relationship with monetization | and until Reddits management are ready to bite the bullet there | is a tendency to focus on vanity metrics such as traffic rather | than $. | thisisnico wrote: | I feel like extraordinary monetization of reddit would ruin | reddit, and the reason why people actually like reddit. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | It's already happening with the profile pages being | implemented. | | I liked it around 2008 because it did not have profile pages | and a fairly simple, straightforward interface and did not | attempt to couple one's real life identity to one's post and | encouraged throwaway accounts by allowing users to sign up | without providing an email address. | | Much of that is changing, and I also find that websites that | encourage a link with one's real life identity tend to have | an ever more annoying culture. | | It also feels like more excessive Americana as time goes on. | It did not seem like idiosyncractic U.S.A. social issues were | as common in 2008, as well as the typical user that assumes | every other user is from the U.S.A.. | allochthon wrote: | Reddit is one of the sites I use the most. I hope they can | figure out a financially sustainable model without becoming | obnoxious or, eventually, being bought up by a private equity | firm. | BeFlatXIII wrote: | If they do ruin Reddit with monetization, I hope it also | ruins a few people's investment portfolios along the way. | mdoms wrote: | I suspect (without proof) that Reddit's unique user count is | far smaller than its actual user count. People proudly use | multiple alts and such behaviour is tacitly encouraged by the | platform. It's not at all unusual for a user to have alts for | gaming, porn and other things. Obvious this phenomenon exists | on other platforms but my gut tells me it's far more prevalent | on Reddit. | mschuster91 wrote: | > This is a 50% or more discount to the market-cap/unique | visitor ratio of Twitter, Snap, and Facebook.[1] And all the | stats I've seen indicate much higher user engagement and time | on site for Reddit compared to the other social platforms. | | Most people have one Snap / FB account and one, maximum two | Twitter accounts... but throwaways are the _norm_ on Reddit (as | well as HN), which means Reddit 's user count is inflated by | quite a bit. Additionally, Reddit has _large_ nsfw communities | that draw lots of members and visitors (again, most with | separate accounts!), and these can 't be reasonably monetized | at all. | Cipater wrote: | >Either way, Reddit should be throwing an insane amount of | money and equity to get a Sheryl Sandberg like executive with a | track record of juicing monetization. | | You mean that they should spend as much money as they can on | ruining Reddit. | spike021 wrote: | Yet routinely their service still has incredibly poor performance | and there are bugs in their iOS app that have been around for | months. | | Crazy. | sushid wrote: | It was also down for a few hours this week. Can't think of many | 11 figure companies that go down as often as Reddit does. | vntok wrote: | Shows that in the real world, users don't actually really | care about having a five nines availability for a forum. | marcusverus wrote: | As all social media companies likely know, addicts make for | a loyal clientele. | ltbarcly3 wrote: | Reddit is 16 years old. It's one of the largest sites on the | internet by views, users, time on site, any metric you would care | about. They have something like 500 FTE's, which is tiny compared | to lots of other sites with far less traffic. | | It's basically the perfect combination of high traffic and low | costs, and they have raised close to a billion dollars in | funding. If they aren't profitable now, they are very unlikely to | ever be profitable. I think it's likely they will sell to one of | the big players (I would guess FB) in the next 5 years or so. If | that goes the 'usual way', whoever acquires them will immediately | let the site fall apart and eventually shut it down, and in the | meantime a new hot reddit/digg/slashdot like site will emerge to | take it's place almost overnight. | slownews45 wrote: | Valuation was $10B per linked article for those curious (I was). | Shorel wrote: | More money for more censorship. Great. | | And for more propaganda. I still don't know which one is worse. | | Long gone are the days when it was a better tech site than HN. | marketingtech wrote: | I would imagine most of these investments will go to three | places: | | * Sales - start generating revenue from all these eyeballs, | leveraging your interest graph for targeting. this requires way | more headcount than you'd expect, especially to chase enough | revenue to justify a $10b valuation | | * Safety - beyond all the well-discussed dangers of large-scale | user forums, this also impacts monetization. you don't want to | subject the average new user to extreme/alt/adult content (though | you can still offer space for those communities) or else you may | scare them off. major advertisers want "brand safety" and want to | avoid being associated with upsetting or even mildly profane | content | | * Regulatory - dozens of countries and states are rolling out | unique regulations around privacy, data usage, and user rights. | this is a nightmare to navigate from both a product and legal | sense | baud147258 wrote: | so more money so they do another UI redesign that's again going | to reduce usability and push mobile users towards their app? | [deleted] | [deleted] | neonate wrote: | https://archive.is/2kQBG | sergiotapia wrote: | In the hn tiktok thread, I saw a salient comment that said: "When | I visit reddit I just leave angry". | | Tiktok doesn't have this problem. I always have fun on that app, | and leave feeling like it was a good time. Reddit is the total | opposite. Nothing but people screaming and mods power-tripping, | forever. | | Never experienced a website that objectively has such terrible | impact on peoples lives. Are they going to use this money to turn | it around? | barbazoo wrote: | I found that if you stick to very specific subreddits there is | a way to use the site without getting angry. | iammisc wrote: | I don't think i've ever been to reddit.com without an /r/ | after the name. | post_break wrote: | That's all dependent on the subs you visit. I have learned so | much on reddit. News and leaks before it breaks anywhere else. | How to 3D print stuff. Extremely complicated laws and how to | avoid going to prison for stuff I knew nothing about. | | Reddit is the ultimate "it is what you make of it" website. If | you spend your time in the subs that make you angry then yeah, | but if you narrow it down to only things you like you'll have a | great time. | sergiotapia wrote: | That has not been my experience, and I've browsed some | _really_ niche subreddits for a "famous" group of | bodybuilders in Delray beach if you catch my drift. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | The front page is a perfected outrage machine. I don't think | even Twitter comes close to it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-12 23:00 UTC)