[HN Gopher] Omg.lol: An Oasis on the Internet ___________________________________________________________________ Omg.lol: An Oasis on the Internet Author : blakewatson Score : 734 points Date : 2023-12-10 20:26 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (blakewatson.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blakewatson.com) | cianmm wrote: | I've been using Omg.lol for around a year now (Cian.lol) and am | really enjoying it. It's just so simple - it feels like | travelling back in time to when we wrote blog posts and made | websites to share with our friends, not to Create Content. | lannisterstark wrote: | I skimmed OPs post, and then read yours, and I'm still a bit | confused as to how it's different than just hosting a mishmash | of different but related services yourself. If you could not, | yes that's fine. But if you could, what really are the | advantages? | tw04 wrote: | Presumably the mastadon integration. Think twitter with your | profile directly tied to your personal site - except not | twitter. | cianmm wrote: | I actually don't really use the social stuff all that much. | I already have a mastodon account on a country-specific | server, and I'm not much of an IRC/Discord user | alexeldeib wrote: | This is the classic Dropbox criticism, no? | | Moreover, the pleasure has nothing to do with self hosting or | not, it's just a pleasant and whimsical UX while being | technically solid. | graypegg wrote: | I think you kind of answered your question, no? Setting up | web things, especially when they have a chance to get quite | bursty hug-of-death traffic, is hard for most people. I'd | prefer to set things up myself but I know that places me in a | verrrrry small minority of folks. | cianmm wrote: | I argue with computers for my day job, I don't want to do | that after work hours too. I'm happy to pay somebody else | (especially Adam who is just so active with the community) a | fairly paltry sum to do it for me. | lannisterstark wrote: | To be entirely fair (in my situation), what I do at work | and what I find fun to do with computers are two different | things :P | bruh2 wrote: | So true. I reached a point where the tools I fiddle with | at home have such an overlap with the ones I use at work, | with Python and Ansible being the uncanny leaders. I | feared - in vain - losing the ability to enjoy hacking as | a hobby. They just don't feel the same, y'know? | rsynnott wrote: | Hosting all of this stuff on your own would be a lot of fuss | which most people wouldn't want to bother with. | soulofmischief wrote: | Just because I can manage a service doesn't mean I want to | all the time. I'm a busy guy and already have client | infrastructure to manage. At a point in my life where I'm | trying to cut down on things I have to tend to. | tambourine_man wrote: | That internet is not dead, you know? It's just the the other | part grew so massively. | | There are still people writing blog posts and websites that | don't require you to dismiss 5 popups before you can interact | with it. It can be done. | lacrimacida wrote: | It's just hard to find. Google returns trash | larrysalibra wrote: | Try out kagi...they have a filter for "smallweb" posts: | https://kagi.com/smallweb | | The list of sites is on github: | https://github.com/kagisearch/smallweb | rtpg wrote: | It's wild to think about how anybody found info back in the | day. Forums were probably the big one I guess? There was | always something magical about being linked to forum and | finding a wealth of info there, and entire domains of | knowledge. | | FWIW stuff linked from HN & friends is not always the best, | but I am pretty agressive about sticking RSS feeds from | blogs that get linked here. That gives an inflow of | interesting stuff people find. It's not a thing you can do | in one go, but after a while you have a lot of neat stuff | from people who cared enough to post it. | monkeywork wrote: | webrings, IRC, forums and mailing lists, etc. | 8372049 wrote: | Back in the day you got actually useful results from | search engines. | joquarky wrote: | Yahoo was originally a text file small enough to fit on a | 1.44 floppy disk | latexr wrote: | When you want that kind of content, you should use a | different search engine which makes it easy to find. | | https://search.marginalia.nu/ | lhmiles wrote: | Give me your favorite small web links | cwoolfe wrote: | How did you get cian.lol? Why isn't it cian.omg.lol? | Tomte wrote: | You can register domains yourself and set them up, under | "Switchboard" --> "External Domain Routes" | tonymet wrote: | goes to show there's still lot of creativity left in the web. web | pages, DNS, email forwarding, vanity domains -- i'm glad to see | hackers tinkering and exploring what the next gen web looks like. | Otherwise we'll lose it to commercialism and walled gardens. | kibwen wrote: | This is exactly what I've been thinking about making recently as | a response to the enshittification of the web: a single site that | just collects a small number of useful, simple web apps that I | could share with other people who are tired of being perversely | monetized by ads and VCs. Utterly brilliant, thanks for sharing! | lopis wrote: | Do it. The more the merrier. | lannisterstark wrote: | I just self host stuff on my domain and link them to a Flame | dashboard for family and friends. | | https://github.com/pawelmalak/flame | | Dashboard is only accessible by my wireguard network, Which | they can turn the LAN mode on on, so it doesn't route all their | traffic, just to the local domain. | unshavedyak wrote: | You've got me thinking the same thing. Omg.lol seems as | interesting as it is enticing me to build a similar thing for | fun. | ghewgill wrote: | There are various similar communities, which don't have to | compete with one another because the internet is a big place. | Two that jump to mind are https://tildeverse.org and | https://disroot.org. | shermantanktop wrote: | "omg.lol is unabashedly built with PHP" | | PHP is on my mental list of forever-security-challenged tech, but | it got on that list a long time ago. It's 2023, is that still a | reasonable concern? | mattl wrote: | No, modern PHP frameworks have come a long way. | Retr0id wrote: | Speaking as someone who has pentested a few PHP codebases over | the years, rather than as a developer, It's a bit like C. That | is, it's an absolute footgun in the wrong hands, and a lesser | footgun in experienced hands. | | For experienced devs following best practices and using modern | frameworks it's "mostly fine", and that's the side of things | that's been improved over the years, but most of the old rakes | are still there to be stood on. | wvenable wrote: | > but most of the old rakes are still there to be stood on. | | I don't think that's necessarily true -- a lot of features | have been deprecated and removed. | kemayo wrote: | Most notably, in 5.4.0 (in 2012!) they removed | register_globals and magic_quotes. (Which had both been | deprecated and off-by-default for a while before, I | believe.) | | The former was _notoriously_ insecure, as what it did was | promote anything passed in as a cookie, GET, or POST | variable into a global-scoped variable inside your script. | Since PHP didn 't require any sort of declaring-your- | variables-before-using-them, it was pretty easy to wind up | with scripts written in a way that would allow this an | unwise amount of access to the script's internals. | | The latter automatically escaped special characters with | backslashes in all the aforementioned user-provided | variables so you could pass them straight into mysql | queries. It was, however, _optional_ and so caused errors | because code got written relying on it and then ran on | servers with it disabled, allowing SQL injection attacks... | or double-escaping things in code written the other way | around. | | But these days are long behind us! | lucb1e wrote: | Also a pentester here. I find C and PHP to be quite | different. Somehow, C applications always have catastrophic | issues pop up, sooner or later, where you can make it execute | random code at least under some circumstances. PHP | applications can be the same if the team is inexperienced or | doesn't get the necessary time to apply best practices, but | I've also seen plenty of PHP applications where we didn't | find significant issues with the server-side aspects. | | PHP applications are fun to test because most teams found | another set of solutions to the same problems (it has so much | history that wheels have been reinvented a lot), so you get | to see new things. They're also typically larger than newer | and new-style services written in a shiny new language, which | haven't had time to accumulate as many features and are often | written as a microservice (smaller components where one/each | dev can know all the ins and outs, allowing to have a total | overview so that security controls can much more easily be | implemented in a unified way). | block_dagger wrote: | Concerns with PHP are less about security and more about | language design, at least that's my take after 22 years of | dealing with it off and on (full-time "on" for several years). | wvenable wrote: | Nope. | | PHP itself has also come along way. I don't know if it's | because of it's reputation that it seems to evolve faster than | most languages. | | I recently used PHP to construct my personal site/blog. I | didn't use any frameworks but I did use it's statically | typed/strongly typed features that that is very different from | how I would have coded in PHP years ago. | jay-barronville wrote: | > It's 2023, is that still a reasonable concern? | | No. A LOT has changed in the world of PHP over the years. And | to be honest, I give credit to amazing frameworks like Laravel | [0] for giving PHP a massive facelift (I consider Taylor Otwell | one of my software heroes). Overall though, modern PHP software | is much cleaner and more secure than whatever you knew from | years ago. | | [0]: https://laravel.com | reddalo wrote: | I agree about Laravel and Taylor Otwell. | | Moreover, I'd like to point out that even if the vast | majority of PHP-backed websites are based on WordPress, | WordPress _is not_ an example of good PHP practices at all. | Its code-base and coding standards are old and horrible. | joshmanders wrote: | That's because it tries to not break backwards | compatibility and spoiler: past web people had horrible | standards. | zlg_codes wrote: | Today's web people have horrible standards, too. Who | ships an entire browser to ship an application? | quickthrower2 wrote: | That's nothing, next they'll ship the entire world's | knowledge to ship an application :-). Looks at LLMs. | jay-barronville wrote: | Agreed re WordPress, although I haven't seen their code in | YEARS, so maybe their codebase has evolved too. | | Re Taylor, if I was a billionaire (or at the very least, | extremely wealthy), he's one of those folks I'd write a no- | strings-attached blank check to go build anything he wants | --just a brilliant and overall great human. I used to be | very active in the Laravel community many years ago, and | even way back then, before Laravel was super famous (first | Laracon days), I remember meeting Taylor and being | thoroughly impressed. Over the years, on multiple | occasions, I've heard folks at relatively large | organizations say they adopted PHP solely because of Taylor | and Laravel. Recently, when I saw someone mention in a post | that Taylor has a Lambo now, I was so happy for him--it | feels great to see him thrive after making the type of | impact that he has. | reddalo wrote: | > so maybe their codebase has evolved too. | | Unfortunately, not so much. They still follow PHP 5-days | style, for example they still haven't adopted the short | array syntax [], they always use array() which is | horrible in my opinion. | | The code base is horrible, but the front-facing | experience is not so bad (unless you start installing | lots of plugins, which tend to add different interface | styles and lots of banners everywhere in the admin | panel). | rchaud wrote: | PHP, jQuery and W3Schools - HN's combined kryptonite | Keyframe wrote: | That crown belongs to Javascript now. | jay-barronville wrote: | Please elaborate. | graypegg wrote: | The curse of popularity. Relatively more people using | something, means higher absolute amounts of garbage being | made with it. I wouldn't say modern javascript tooling gives | you some obscenely high number of foot guns to target | practice with, at least compared to the other web-capable | options. (PHP, Python, Ruby, etc) | Aeolun wrote: | Yeah, JS does less with it's stdlib, which I think means a | lot of people end up using mostly decent packages from npm | instead of writing extra garbage themselves. | tambourine_man wrote: | It was wrongly added to that list I the first place. | _heimdall wrote: | Security really was (still is?) a WordPress concern. PHP itself | isn't really a security issue, security will come from the code | you write rather than the language itself | Aeolun wrote: | Well, it's extremely backwards compatible. To the point my 15 | year old websites written in it still work with some minor (+/- | 10 lines) modifications. | | Presumably you can still write bad code in PHP. But the mysql | library that was sql injection heaven is now truly dead. | xwowsersx wrote: | Not related to security, but I was quite surprised to see how | far PHP has come since I used it many years ago: [PHP doesn't | suck (anymore)](https://youtu.be/ZRV3pBuPxEQ) | smsm42 wrote: | No it is not. Arguably, it never were. I mean yes, PHP had | security bugs. So did all other platforms - including, for | example, the Java one that led to Equifax compromise, which is | as close as "everybody just lost their privacy" as any single | break-in can get. I'd argue that PHP's security stance as a | platform was never substantially worse than any comparable | platform. | | However, you get two additional factors: a) it's easy, | therefore it attracts beginners and b) it's popular, therefore | a lot of software uses it. More various software - more | security issues. More software implemented by beginners - _a | lot more_ security issues. That was inevitable - any platform | that was as low entry barrier and as popular and that appeared | in the same time, when the web was exploding, but the | understanding of how to manage security on the web was lagging | behind - would have absolutely the same going on. | | But, blaming the tool because a lot of people didn't use it | correctly - and, also, because due to its novelty there weren't | proper education and frameworks that made it easy to do the | right thing - makes little sense. There's nothing security- | challenged in PHP. It's just that PHP was there when security- | challenged programmers started to build websites. Most of them | grew up now and know how to do it right. Either in PHP or in | any other language. | graypegg wrote: | Hey this is great! While I don't know if it's for me, I know tons | of folks that will love this. Good find! The only thing that I | think is missing is a onboarding tool to create an account from | another existing mastodon instance rather than by buying a domain | and getting a new masto account via that process, call it | forklift.omg.lol or something. :) | toomuchtodo wrote: | Very nice, purchased a handle to support. And passkey support is | _chef kiss_. | bovermyer wrote: | I checked out Omg.lol when it first got popular on HN | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34269772). | | At the time, I thought it was an amalgamation of things I already | did on my own or otherwise had a community for (e.g., Neocities, | Tilde Town). | | Now, though, I think I get it. There's something to be said for | sustained energy. | bovermyer wrote: | OK, I bit. | | Here's my spot: https://dungeonhack.omg.lol/ | | I look forward to meeting you! | blakewatson wrote: | OP here, just wanted to say your tabletop links page is _chef | 's kiss_. | jadbox wrote: | > Now, though, I think I get it. | | What do you get now? | bovermyer wrote: | The community vibe. The energy. The reason for something | technologically commonplace to be exceptional and worth | interest. | rambambram wrote: | Nice blog you have there! My RSS reader finds a feed on your | website, but has problems showing it. It seems to validate as a | valid Atom feed, so I was wondering if you ever heard before of | external sites not being able to load it? | bovermyer wrote: | If you're talking about my personal site | https://benovermyer.com, no, I have not heard of problems | rendering the RSS for it. | | If you are having issues I would like as much detail as you | can provide. | rambambram wrote: | Yes, I'm talking about your personal site. It might be my | homegrown RSS reader, because around 10 to 15 of the 900+ | feeds I follow just don't show me the content of the feed | items. It also doesn't show the feed's title, the | description and - strangely enough - also not your site's | favicon (which is outside the scope of the feed itself). | | I validated the feed at https://validator.w3.org/feed/check | .cgi?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww... and everything seems well | (except for some "recommendations" to make it even better). | | I now saved your site in my feed reader as a sort of | bookmark, so I am reminded by it's existence and will check | it from time to time, but it would be cool if it shows up | immediately. | | I've not researched the problem yet, but one of the | possible problems that comes to mind is some server setting | at your side that stops my external domain from reaching | it. Which probably is strange, because w3.org can reach it | without problems. | | I'm willing to do a little experiment: if you put online a | very simple, handmade testfeed, I can try to reach that. | What you think about that? | bovermyer wrote: | I went through and corrected all the little problems the | validator was reporting. Maybe that will fix it. | | Can you try again? | rambambram wrote: | Yes, it works! I see a post about a wellness challenge | from 2 December as being your latest post. Thanks a lot! | PenguinRevolver wrote: | It's nice, the only problem I got with omg.lol is that Wayback | Machine archives are unavailable for all domains. I'm concerned | that this part of the internet won't be saved for others to see | in the future. | yellow_lead wrote: | Is there a reason for that or they just haven't been archived | yet? | Ringz wrote: | Unlikely. Some people archive every page they visit. | blakewatson wrote: | Oh wow, you're right. I wonder what's up with that. | politelemon wrote: | Just tried and I see someone else also tried after seeing your | comment. | | > The same snapshot had been made 25 minutes ago. You can make | new capture of this URL after 1 hour. | | But yeah it's strange, nothing appears in the archive: | | https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://bw.omg.l... | toomuchtodo wrote: | It's possible the site owner has asked the Archive to dark | site specific captures. Capture jobs will still run, but they | won't be available publicly (until some future date). | | You can always run your own crawls with grab site: | https://github.com/ArchiveTeam/grab-site | contrarian1234 wrote: | I think that's great.. archiving should be opt-in not opt-out | | You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I | don't or change my mind you can't. Once someone posts | something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity .. That's | how things should work - but that's just my opinion | leononame wrote: | I Disagree. There's not a big difference between someone | reading your stuff and saving it versus automatic archiving. | Being able to delete what you said makes real discourse with | a bad actor very hard if not impossible. If you change your | mind, you are always free to rectify, but you shouldn't be | able to pretend you never said this or that. | | I know there's a line to draw somewhere, personal blogs | aren't our countries' leaders' Twitter accounts or press | conferences. Copying someone's copyrighted work in form of an | archive might some legal implications I'm not aware of. But | keeping things for posteriority is important and I don't | believe people should be able to choose what part of their | words and actions will be recorded and which won't. | echelon wrote: | Vehement disagree. Many of the early communities I | participated in are gone forever, and it's a shame to think | of how much more has been lost to time. | | In the absolute limit, I hope our future descendents | reconstruct the past light cone and can replay all of our | biochemical thoughts and emotions. Perhaps even simulating | our existence and perception to exacting precision. | | Maybe they'll get to see t-rexes in their natural habitat, | visit lost 90s websites, and feel what taking the organic | chemistry final was like. | rd wrote: | I've had this exact thought a million times. | | The first time I tripped acid - I remember writing a page | of notes on how sad I felt that I would never get to | experience the exact way a memory occurred to me in the | past. | | What's even more saddening is that with tech like Rewind, | and what'll be the future of Rewind in 10-20 years, by | 2040, I fully expect all memories/events ever produced to | be logged in an almost endless database of all human | experience. | | But - because time is linear, we wouldn't ever fully be | able to simulate the past of say everything before 2030? | And that's just so sad. | Aeolun wrote: | In one way it's sad, but if we archive everything from | 2040 onward I guarantee that any pre 2040 years will | always seem like a better time. | BirAdam wrote: | Kind of insane to think about. Part of me is horrified to | think that this time could be seen as "better" but | another part says that past was never what you remember | it as... | TeMPOraL wrote: | Except for the artifice that is copyright, things don't work | like that for anything else. _Reality_ doesn 't work like | that. | | > _Once someone posts something, you don 't have a right to | it in perpetuity_ | | On the contrary, once someone posts something, _they_ don 't | have control over it anymore. You can't make me unsee what | you wrote, or unhear what you said. You have no right to stop | me from writing it down, and even if you can stop me from | republishing it verbatim right now, you generally don't have | the right to do it indefinitely. | | > _And once I don 't or change my mind you can't._ | | To be clear, I'm not dogmatically firm about it, but I | believe that a word in which you get to distance yourself | from past views, or mark them mistaken, and people accept it, | would be _much_ better than the world in which you 're free | to _gaslight everyone else_ by pretending that something | never happened, even though it did. | | (All that on top of the usual point that it's neither the | author nor their audience that can judge what's archive- | worthy - only future people can.) | notkaiho wrote: | Brilliant argument/username combo :) | bovermyer wrote: | I disagree. | | If you publish something publicly, it should be available for | all time. | | If you change your mind, it's on you to make that known. | porcoda wrote: | Totally agree. The tech community has a massive arrogance | problem where we tend towards opt-out vs opt-in for | everything. Just because us tech-savvy folks understand the | consequences of, say, posting something online, doesn't mean | the bulk of humanity who isn't tech savvy also understands | that and agrees with us. | JoshuaRogers wrote: | While we in the tech community are guilty of taking many | things for granted as generally understood, I'm fairly | certain that "consequences for past public statements" | predates the bulk of our modern technology. | bee_rider wrote: | There isn't any way we can make being copied opt-in, rather | than opt-out. We can not copy things. But we can't prevent | other people from copying things. So, it is better to set | the expectation that things will be copied, otherwise | people will be mislead into thinking they can delete their | content, and will post things they regret. | | Plus, if everyone can delete their mistakes, we'll live in | a world where it looks like nobody makes mistakes, and so | we'll be less tolerant of mistakes. | Aeolun wrote: | > archiving should be opt-in not opt-out | | That's really weird. If someone posts a sign on their store | window, and I take a picture of it, should I be required to | delete the picture when they remove the sign? | afpx wrote: | That's why I have alt accounts - one for each of my different | personalities. | johnfernow wrote: | In the UK, if you publish a book, magazine or newspaper, by | law you have to send a copy to the British Library for | archive. A lot of other countries have similar laws. In the | UK, legal deposit has expanded to include the web (so long as | the person/group creating the content is in the UK), but | since many individuals and small businesses are unaware of | legal deposit, the UK Web Archive will archive a lot of the | web by themselves. | | Tom Scott interviewed some people from the British Library, | and they explain the importance of archiving: | | > The importance of legal deposit not being selective, and | being everything, is: we can't decide today what's going to | be important in 50 years' time. We want everything, because | we don't know what will be important. | | He also added his own thoughts: | | > I cannot overstate just how useful it is to be able to | track down things that never made it online, or to research | out of print, forgotten books where there are no other copies | available, or to scan through every issue of an obscure local | newspaper to track down one reference. This is the raw text | of history, as it happened, and someone has to keep it | preserved for the future. | | source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNVuIU6UUiM | burkaman wrote: | The creator's company website is also excluded: https://web.arc | hive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://neatnik..... Maybe some | philosophical disagreement? | lucb1e wrote: | Presumably due to https://neatnik.net/robots.txt | 77pt77 wrote: | > User-agent: ia_archiver | | > Disallow: / | | Denied! | flexagoon wrote: | Wow, thanks for pointing that out, that made me never want | to join omg.lol | lucb1e wrote: | That's not present on another omglol site that was linked | elsewhere in the thread, though. | | I would agree with you if they automatically set this for | everyone. I'm not sure how come that other sites aren't | showing up in the archive. (I'm not a customer of theirs | or anything, I'm already hosting my own stuff) | rapnie wrote: | This blocking of the archiver may be philosophical, but not a | disgreement. Just speculating, but on the fediverse there are | quite a few people who feel their social interactions are | personal and 'in the moment'. Something akin to the Cozy Web | [0] though not being too strict about (everything is still | public after all). | | [0] https://maggieappleton.com/cozy-web | anjel wrote: | Works with archive.today: https://archive.is/zAbYO Also works | with Ghost Archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/ValSP | | Wayback Machine is arguably a more durable archive site than | these other two archives, but the fact that it can be archived | elsewhere would indicate that the problem is likely to be on | archive.org's end of things rather than omg.lol | graypegg wrote: | That kind of sucks :( So much of the "small internet" of the | past people talk about in relation to this stuff, is only | really preserved in any significant scale by IA. Hope it's not | the operator making a big sweeping decision for all users. | Grimblewald wrote: | Some might argue that is the magic of it. It is much easier | to be happy when you miss some things, and look forwars to | others. Some listen to radio, or use streaming services in a | radio like way (no skipping, no targeted searches) for the | same reason, sure they could keep looping their favourite | song on whatever platform, but its waaay more exciting when | it comes on unexpectabtly. | | Our interactions having a fleeting nature makes them more | special and forces us to be more emotionally involved. | | Just an alternative take, no a statment of my personal | opinion. | nicbou wrote: | If omg.lol is an oasis, this post was a stranger offering you a | sip. What a refreshingly nice and personal post! | NanoYohaneTSU wrote: | It's an ad bro | crawsome wrote: | It certainly feels like it. | beardicus wrote: | are you saying the author was paid for this post? seems like | an enthusiastic user to me. do you know what an advertisement | is? | 1B05H1N wrote: | Sorry, why would I pay 20/year bucks for this when I have my own | website/infra? | james_pm wrote: | I happily pay $20/year so I don't need to worry about it. Not | everyone can or wants to run their own infra. | airstrike wrote: | So that you don't have to worry about outages, updates, | bugfixes, certs, permissions, vulnerabilities, ... like you do | on your own website/infra? | akho wrote: | It's the same infrastructure, with the same outages. | | The other points are something for the developers of your | software distribution to worry about, same as if you buy a | packaged service. | erxam wrote: | Even without taking into account the time investment in | maintaining your own infra, it compares favorably with | everything else. Even the most dirt-cheap VPS is a few bucks | more expensive on a yearly basis by itself, and you still have | to buy domains and similar. | | Running your own infra only really works out if you either have | access to great hardware for super-cheap or WANT the experience | from setting everything up. | cipheredStones wrote: | It consistently surprises me how much software engineers | devalue the effort of software engineering when it comes to | their personal lives. | | If you're a SWE in an English-speaking country, you almost | certainly make $20 post-tax for at most one hour of work - | 30m at SV salaries, as little as 15m if you're at a FAANG-ish | company. Is it conceivable that you would spend less than an | hour a year maintaining something like this if you were to do | it yourself? I don't think so. | | Most people can't earn money in increments of one additional | hour, of course, but it still sounds strange to hear people | say "why should I spend [the amount of money I earn in half | an hour] per year when I could just do it myself [with an | amount of professional effort I would expect to be paid 20x | as much for]?" | crims0n wrote: | I get where you are coming from, but I think the answer for | a lot of us is... for the experience. | cipheredStones wrote: | That's a perfectly valid motivation, but if it's really | what someone is going for, I expect to hear an objection | that sounds something like "oh, that's cool! but I'd | rather try out doing it myself" rather than the faintly | contemptuous "why is this worth $X when I could do it | myself". | akho wrote: | > Is it conceivable that you would spend less than an hour | a year maintaining something like this if you were to do it | yourself? I don't think so. | | Is it conceivable that that you would spend much more than | an hour maintaining _this_? Including making your stuff fit | the mold, working around the limitations, and, inevitably, | moving your stuff to a new service when this one fails, as | they do? | | Also: a VPS replaces quite a few of these services. | Maintenance beyond initial setup and occasional update is | rarely needed if you are the only user. People tend to | overestimate these things. | uiberto wrote: | Didn't you know that everyone on HN bakes their own bread? | jodrellblank wrote: | > " _Even the most dirt-cheap VPS is a few bucks more | expensive on a yearly basis by itself_ " | | Not if you get a Black Friday special; here[1] was | $14.95/year for 40GB SSD, 1GB RAM, 1TB monthly bandwidth, | 1CPU core. | | RackNerd were offering $10.28/year[2] for 10GB SSD storage, | 768MB RAM. | | Hudson Valley offered $8/year[3] for 10GB SSD and 512MB RAM | | [1] https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/190984/from-14-95-yr-10 | -gb... | | [2] https://lowendbox.com/best-cheap-vps-hosting- | updated-2020/ (sold out) | | [3] https://lowendbox.com/blog/are-you-serious-hudson-valley- | hos... | Cyberdog wrote: | As with many other things, I'd advise against picking a VPS | plan based on price alone. | | I've found Vultr to be both affordable and of consistent | quality for my modest needs (personal and business web | hosting plus IRC bouncing). I pay about $5/mo or $60/year. | jodrellblank wrote: | That's fine, but the complaint was that a VPS is "a few | dollars more [than $20/year]" as if that was an | objectionable amount/increase. In that case, money is the | main decider and $60 is much worse, and $8 is much | better. People fighting for "a few dollars" a year are | likely to be expecting (or unhappily tolerate) lower | quality. | | I've had pretty good experiences of Linux VPSs for around | $20/year from several companies. | tredre3 wrote: | So to beat omg.lol's price you have to hunt for a bargain, | then hope the price doesn't double in the following year? | | Oh, and you also need to own a domain already, otherwise | it's an extra 10-20 bucks per year. | jodrellblank wrote: | No, you can get a free Unix account on sdf.org with web | hosting and email if you want to build for yourself the | kind of thing omg.lol does and don't want a VPS. It's | just "Even the most dirt-cheap VPS is a few bucks more | [than $20/year]" is outdated, they're available less than | half that price and likely only getting cheaper in | future. If you really want, you can risk things like the | Oracle Cloud Free Tier. If budget is what you want or | need, then "hunting" (visiting Lowendbox.com) is | something you are probably willing to do. | | omg.lol gives a subdomain rather than a domain, right? So | do free dynamic DNS providers like noip.com or dyndns.org | (not sure if they still do free ones). If you want to | register a domain, you also have outdated pricing, if you | want cheap don't go for a popular TLD; .de is $4/year | after the first year at Porkbun.com, .ovh is PS2.99/year | after the first year at OVH.com, internet people say .ru | is available for $1/year. | p4bl0 wrote: | If you have your own infrastructure to host all of these | services then you're probably not the target audience. It's ok, | it's my case too. | | But you have to admit that $20/year is quite cheap for all of | what is provided here, without having to manage it all | yourself, and with a "no trackers no bullshit" way of doing | things. | | It's really the kind of services I don't need but would almost | like to need! The last time I had this feeling was about | Neocities :). | crawsome wrote: | Github pages is free. A .info domain is $5/year. | | That's already more than half the features you get with this, | and you get to be on the actual internet, not some dude's | silo. | | As the post's age goes on, I see more criticism, and less | positive reactions. | monkeywork wrote: | >That's already more than half the features you get with | this, and you get to be on the actual internet, not some | dude's silo. | | "the actual internet" ?? | sedatk wrote: | > "the actual internet" ?? | | Microsoft's silo, they mean. | slalomskiing wrote: | It's just a fun project why are you taking it so serious | crawsome wrote: | It's $20/mo, and a lot of people are eager to spend it so | it should be subject to due criticism. | ipodopt wrote: | It's $20 per year, not per month... and there are promo | codes for $5/year available most of the time. I don't use | the site but browsed the guy's mastodon feed. | rfrey wrote: | How is hosting your website using a Microsoft silo more "on | the internet" than using this? | dsr_ wrote: | You are not the target audience. | zeekaran wrote: | If I have to spend even one hour per year maintaining my own, | this service is cheaper. | umairj wrote: | Thank you. Just bought it as it looks one and partially because | my initials were available. Kind of a sign :D. Otherwise it will | be one of many domains I'll have to manage for a year ;) | camdenlock wrote: | > I don't know why; probably a curious desire to see how bad Elon | Musk would screw it up | | It's been interesting to watch people go from nerd-crushing on | Elon (omg rockets! omg electric vehicles yay climate!) to | loathing him in the blink of an eye. Goes to show what's really | important to some people... | AlexAffe wrote: | Elon bashing is 99% some companies campaign. There is an amount | of money involved beyond our wildest imagination. World economy | kind of money. You don't read Elon and Tesla content on reddit | frontpage with 30k ups on average almost 24/7 without there | being companies involved spending heavily. | meepmorp wrote: | Instead of a conspiracy or coordinated campaign against Elon | Musk, what if a lot of people have come to think that he's a | douchebag and upvote links about him saying/doing what they | see as douchey things? Maybe he's actually done some stuff | over the last few years that's made him genuinely unpopular | with a lot of people; maybe it's not because "They" are | trying to destroy him, but because many people actually find | his behavior off-putting. | jayveeone wrote: | Nah, he's just a deeply unlikeable jerk | AlexAffe wrote: | To you. That's your opinion. Maybe it's mine. But I will | never go as far as to state something like my opinion as | universially true. You do that. What makes you do that? | metabagel wrote: | Does everything have to end with "in my opinion"? Isn't | that implied? | jayveeone wrote: | Hey man are you okay? | IlliOnato wrote: | For me it was a long and slow journey; and I still love Space | X. But Elon Musk did some really crazy things (starting with | "pedo guy", and going deeper and deeper). | | I don't thing having or loosing my respect would matter to him | if he knew about it though :-) | Dylan16807 wrote: | Why can't I like the rockets but also think he's bad at | twitter? | tambourine_man wrote: | "omg.lol is unabashedly built with PHP" | | I already like you | contrarian1234 wrote: | Seems a bit like Github pages but with more of a social angle to | it. I kinda expected Github to go in this direction eventually - | but keeping social elements out of Github might have been a smart | move | bhasi wrote: | The "web design in 4 min" linked to at the bottom of the page is | very interesting. | bbx wrote: | I didn't realise it was linked to in this article. I built that | on a whim several years ago. It's more about what can be done | in 4 min rather than what's being done. But I'm glad it | inspired people to try to style their own website themselves. | blakewatson wrote: | OP here. I love that little site and I link to it often! | generic92034 wrote: | From that page: "What is the first thing you need to work on?" | | I would say, a page that is usable without scripts. ;) | damiante wrote: | I love the idea of such smaller communities and the "old web" | style of interaction, but for me the issue is one of | discoverability. How do I find and follow people? Does anyone | still use RSS, or are we relying on Mastodon/ActivityPub? Bavk in | the day this was the purpose of search engines, but it seems that | now such small pages are scarcely even indexed... | chongli wrote: | Discoverability and smallness are at odds. This problem isn't | specific to the internet. That quaint, beautiful postcard town | does not remain so once it's been discovered. Eternal September | happens everywhere. | mmazing wrote: | > Discoverability and smallness are at odds. | | Is it really true on the internet though? omg.lol could | presumably stay "small-appearing" and "quaint" and have | millions of users. How could you really tell the difference? | | If it were all indexed you could drill down and find people | who share your interests, that doesn't necessarily ruin the | website, yeah? | OkayPhysicist wrote: | For published works (say, a blog), discoverability is | probably a good thing. For communities, however, with many- | to-many communication (forums, etc.), discoverability is an | antifeature. Community building requires some degree of | common ground, which obscurity naturally filters for. | | The other downside of mass-popularity is that above a | certain scale, your community becomes a target. Both for | individual bad actors (spammers, vandals, etc.) and for the | apex predators of the small community world, commercial | interests. Look at Maker Fair transitioning from a | relatively niche convention of people showing off their | cool stuff they made, and some miscellaneous sponsors and | vendors looking to appeal to those people, to an over- | commercialized affair with a thousand people trying to sell | you a 3D printer, because that's the big moneymaker. | | Community norms are what makes spaces worth inhabiting, and | they just don't scale well. | moralestapia wrote: | Nah, you just need a (not ad oriented) search engine. | | Things could continue to be small and niche, we just a way to | find them. | 8372049 wrote: | You mean kagi.com? | mtillman wrote: | Plug/thanks for https://ooh.directory/ for keeping the dream | alive. | xhrpost wrote: | https://home.omg.lol/directory | treyd wrote: | Fwiw, many feeds provided by Mastodon instances are available | as RSS. Same for other Fedi software, like WriteFreely. | acegopher wrote: | Check out the Kagi Small Web: https://blog.kagi.com/small-web | culopatin wrote: | How did we find forums back in the day? Someone said something | somewhere and you looked it up. It was less discoverable but | less... volatile, because it was just "your" kind of people | there, not millions of random people who found a hashtag | ClimaxGravely wrote: | I wonder about that myself as someone who grew up on this. | | I used webcrawler at the very beginning and I'm probably | looking that things through rose lenses but I found what I | wanted back then. I think back then in some ways it was | easier to find your community because SRO and the like wasn't | a thing back then. | | The years where I found my niche forums benefited me much | more than my college days. | hooby wrote: | Might be a tangent - but is more discoverability actually | desirable in this case? | | Could it possibly preserve that "old web" style of interaction, | if it becomes a global phenomenon that everyone uses? Or does | this only work as long as it stays a little hidden niche, that | most people don't know about, and will never find? | | Or in other words - can something feel like "the old web" | (which was early adopters and enthusiasts only) - if it's | frequented by everyone? | | You love the idea of smaller communities - but how can they | stay small? | 082349872349872 wrote: | have you tried https://search.marginalia.nu ? | kvathupo wrote: | I like this. | | That said, I doubt we'll ever escape towards subscription-based | social media models due to the prohibitive costs of CDNs, | bandwidth, and storage for video/images. But I suppose it's a | question of ends: do we want everyone on social media? | kibwen wrote: | If you can live without video and images, you could comfortably | host even a very large forum (on the order of the top 10% of | subreddits by volume) with only a $5/month VPS, as long as you | made it serve static pages and were judicious with your tech | stack. The cost of hosting text alone wasn't prohibitive 20 | years ago, and it's even less so today. | lacrimacida wrote: | Video and images could he links too | rglullis wrote: | Media is (ought) to be stored in a shared, content | addressable storage system like torrent magnet links and | IPFS. Backed by something like Tahoe-LAFS. | rapnie wrote: | OT, but via the UI design thread on HN, I just bumped into | noosphere protocol, which claims to be just like what you | describe here. | | https://subconscious.substack.com/p/noosphere-a-protocol- | for... | benignobject wrote: | Great to see a Mississippian on the top of HN | crawsome wrote: | I don't really want to yuck the author's yum, because they're | obviously in a period of exploration and having fun, but I don't | think this is a good solution. | | I forget the name of the guy, or his project, but I recall some | "Innovator" was criticized years ago when they tried doing their | own "meta-ICANN" + Social network. They said it was going to be | the next WWW, but what they were really doing was promising web | 3.0 in a silo, at-a-cost... This was maybe 1-2 years before | Zuckerberg's Metaverse concept failed. I thought the reasons were | obvious that it, or metaverse never succeeded. | | For beginners, I don't see how this is immune to all the same | things that are wrong with ICANN. Except, this $20 is more | expensive than most ICANN TLDs. | | Similar to ICANN woes, what's stopping spammers and bots from | buying space and presence there like anywhere else? What's | stopping squatters from buying your name here and holding it up, | or quickly propping-up a celebrity to launch a money scam? Do you | think once a service like this gets popular, that it's much | different than Myspace? | | Is it really appropriate to send someone $20/year for this kind | of thing? You can get a Github Pages for free, use Jekyll on it | to run a blogging app, and get a <5$ .info domain, and you | already have more than half the features here. The rest of the | feature list is all interchangeable with some open source | solution out there. | | With the price barrier (Any price, really) you will get selective | participation based on people who eager to spend money on these | kinds of memberships. So I'd say that this community has one | thing in common, they are (bots or) people, who are eager to give | their money away for that kind of convenience. I hesitate if I | would ever want to be a part of that community _even for free_. | Basically a Twitter badge in the shape of a trendy subdomain and | blogpage that someone sub-leased out to you. You join someone 's | social silo and get to feel like you're in an enlightened club. | | And what of longevity? I assume you lose your blog, your domain, | and your and invested work if you don't pay the subscription? | | Call me closed-minded, but this has "Sell it at-scale, get as | much money as you can, and shut it down in a few years once I buy | that Condo in the hills" kind of energy to me. It's just someone | else trying to make their own metaverse, and that failed with | Zuckerberg's money. Why would this succeed? I can't help but see | it's just a new clean slate, with the same problems of the old | formula, just waiting to be enshittified. | rglullis wrote: | I do not want to hijack the thread, but I can't help but look at | this and think at how many things I seem to have gotten wrong | with communick. | | Both of them seem to have a similar purpose: to be a place to | offer a bunch of services that can work as alternatives to the | Big platforms, and to charge a modest but fair price for it. | Everything else, I seem to have gotten wrong. | | I was convinced that issues of network effects could be mitigated | by offering group packages (so that you could come and bring your | friends along). Turns out that thinking was from my time working | at phone companies who offer "family and friends" plans, which is | not something that people do online. People might be online | friends, but seldom they will care about sharing a package group. | | I thought that the people who would be geeky enough to want their | own DNS would already have had their own domain, so it never | occurred to me to add subdomain spaces. | | I thought that having separate packages for each service would | let people pick whatever they want, but in the end it seems that | making a single plan with a single price makes for a much more | compelling product. | | Seeing omg.lol at the top of HN is amazing validation of the | business model that I think needs to grow to help us get rid of | Big Tech, but holy shit do I need help with product and biz | development. | quickthrower2 wrote: | I think this stuff isn't the easiest discover. "Do your market | research" excludes what people might buy if presented to them. | Plus the see it 7 times to buy effect. I am tempted to buy | this, partly having seen on HN before, and partly for one | feature - the DNS. In my case it would stop me buying domain | names for toy projects, just anotherllmthing.myname.omg.lol. | The silly TLD is sort of a bonus, it forces me to show it as an | MVP!. Although this scratch is somewhat itched for free by | Netlify and Vercel, so... | horsefaceman wrote: | I love this, such a throwback. | jongjong wrote: | > In the fall of 2022, I started using Twitter more. I don't know | why; probably a curious desire to see how bad Elon Musk would | screw it up. | | I stopped reading there. I'm not interested in using a product | made by someone who regurgitates ESG nonsense without thinking. I | want these people and these ideologies out of my life. They need | to do some soul-searching. What is bad about Elon that you want | him to fail? | | Anyone who thinks that free speech is dangerous or harmful in any | way obviously knows nothing about history and has fallen prey to | propaganda. | monooso wrote: | > What is bad about Elon that you want him to fail? | | Read the text you quoted again. The author doesn't say anything | about _wanting_ Musk to fail. | | > I stopped reading there. | | That's a shame. You missed out on a fun blog post. | rglullis wrote: | Put aside the personality of Musk: | | - jacking up the price of the API | | - Removing chronological timeline _completely_ , to the point | that one can not simply get a list of one's tweets by going to | their profile | | - his vision of the "everything app". | | - the "pay to play" aspect of the blue check. | | Are _more than enough_ reason for me to want Twitter to fail. | | I do not want a social media that favors those who are paying, | and I do not want a company that started a simple | communications platform to become even more of an ubiquitous | device for Surveillance Capitalism. | jongjong wrote: | My experience is that before Musk, I felt like I was shadow- | banned. No engagement. Also, as a consumer, the content was | basically the same junk as all other media platforms. Now I | feel like I'm getting all the latest news and things are | actually happening. Small interactions between regular people | are taking place again. It's not just some centralized | mainstream broadcast platform as it used to be. It's way | better. | rglullis wrote: | You got a big corporation on the same team as you. Doesn't | make them the good guys or "better" in any way. The | fundamental principles are all broken. | jongjong wrote: | Those who are against censorship and are against currency | debasement are the good guys objectively. | | Looking back over the past few years, it should be clear | that the purpose of censorship was to suppress | alternative (often correct) information about COVID | policies. | rglullis wrote: | Even if I take your statements at face value: I'm talking | about Twitter, not Musk. It would help if you stop | conflating the two. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Do you have a habit of making up people to be mad at, like | you're doing right now? | rfrey wrote: | > Anyone who thinks that free speech is dangerous or harmful in | any way obviously knows nothing about history and has fallen | prey to propaganda. | | Anyone who thinks Elon Musk is a proponent of free speech has | not been paying attention. | shusaku wrote: | That's a fun set of features, but I don't see the connection with | the community. You can browse their mastodon feed and it's just a | bunch of vaguely liberal vaguely tech posts? I'd like to see | which accounts are using the services for a better community | jim-jim-jim wrote: | That's the shortcoming of every alternative protocol and "indie | web" community I've come across. They only attract existing | techies and have a weird sheen of forced kindness about them. | If you're just chatting with other programmers under American | HR communication standards, then how is it any different to | work? | | The true magic of the early web was somebody genius but | decidedly untechnical like David Bowie shitposting at his own | fans. There's no special line of code that's going to foster | that. You have to ruthlessly curate a community to avoid a | critical mass of sensitive nerds, but guess who the early | colonizers of these alt platforms are. None of these | communities will attract today or tomorrow's David Bowies. | p-e-w wrote: | > The true magic of the early web was somebody genius but | decidedly untechnical like David Bowie shitposting at his own | fans. | | No, the magic of the early web was that people treated their | online identities as a secret alternative life, rather than a | resume for recruiters, friends, potential partners, and other | real-world acquaintances to look at. | | The Internet of today is little more than a (distorted) | mirror of people's offline lives. That's why the problems of | today's Internet are the same as the problems of the real | world. By contrast, the Internet of the 90s was an exciting | world of its own, with rules that were dramatically different | from those of everyday life. | hsn915 wrote: | Also many of us were much younger, even teenagers, with | little to no exposure to HR hell. | jackstraw14 wrote: | Many weren't, too. | paledot wrote: | > The Internet of today is little more than a (distorted) | mirror of people's offline lives. | | Our offline lives are a distorted mirror of the Internet of | today. | rudasn wrote: | Yeah, in the 90s and 00s I think people published just | because they could. Either real identity or not. They (we?) | had something to say, to express. | | Nowadays people just publish to be seen. There's a huge | difference on the type of content this leads to. | jl6 wrote: | This, but also because it was something genuinely new that | had never been seen before. Doubly so if you were young | then and old now. Everything was novel, and therefore | interesting - even the bad things. I've seen people | expressing nostalgia for blink tags. | | Perhaps the medium is just a little played out. | rtpg wrote: | > None of these communities will attract today or tomorrow's | David Bowies. | | I kind of get what you're saying but I'm tired of people who | act like "shitposting skills" are a useful quality trait. | Similarly people who just can't not let something be. | | I kind of dislike "forced kindness" as a community philosophy | (I've met way too many people IRL who have a net persona of | "super kind" and turn out to be, glibly, sociopaths), but | "please don't be insufferable" is a nice rule of thumb for | communities. Plenty of cool stuff made by people who are | merely a little annoying. Meanwhile too many places have | "those people" who just won't let something go. Let people | keep their honor! | jim-jim-jim wrote: | Shitposting wasn't the best choice of words, sorry. I think | you know what I'm getting at though. There are cheeky | artists and those to whom cheekiness is the art. The latter | cohort are just annoying trolls, but the former group can | animate communities. You just don't tend to find them among | the small souled and dogmatic bitdiddlers that haunt every | upstart platform. | hitekker wrote: | > attract existing techies and have a weird sheen of forced | kindness about them. | | > If you're just chatting with other programmers under | American HR communication standards, then how is it any | different to work? | | > There's no special line of code that's going to foster | that. | | > you have to ruthlessly curate a community to avoid a | critical mass of sensitive nerds, but guess who the early | colonizers of these alt platforms are | | Great comment. Aligns with my own observations. On the note | of "American HR Communication standards & work" I think most | of us don't have experience participating in, let alone, | organizing real communities[1]. Since most internet | communities are awful, imaginary, transient etc, we default | to the only actual experience we have semi-happily working | with strangers: our jobs. Adding on top how internet comments | are forever, cancelations is right around the corner, and | careers hang in the balance, and you get a Bay Area | photocopied dialogue. | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place | onion2k wrote: | _guess who the early colonizers of these alt platforms are_ | | The early web was mostly nerds, but not just tech nerds. I | made my first site in 1997 and I linked to all sorts of | things about TV shows, music and games that had been made by | fans of things. If someone loved the X-Files and wanted to | contribute to a site about it the only option was to get a | book about HTML from the library and learn to use FTP. It | thrived because it was just a group of people enthusiastic | about things. Few people wanted to criticise because the only | response you'd get was "well you make a better website | then!". And when that happened people did. There were | rivalries that worked like a feedback loop to improve things. | That's missing today. People just criticise and don't try to | do better. I blame the rise of guestbooks. | ykonstant wrote: | My first experience with "social media" was in the late 90s | with a website dedicated to the Wheel of Time, | www.wota.com. We had enormous fun in the forums and web | chat, and I loved the design and flow. It was mostly hacked | together in Perl. Rand Al'Thor, if you are reading this, | where are youuu? It's me, TrueSource! \(>=V<=)/ | robertlagrant wrote: | > guess who the early colonizers of these alt platforms are | | Sorry - what is "colonizer" here? Do you mean users? | alex_lav wrote: | I made an account and can't seem to figure out where this | magical community actually is? It seems like I can just link | other open services? And for some reason I can receive email? | | Not a single other person('s content) in sight though. | joeross wrote: | > I'd like to see which accounts are using the services for a | better community | | It's more like after you use it for a little while you look up | and suddenly realize you're in a new but familiar feeling | community. It definitely skews developer/blogger/liberal, is | openly inclusive and mindful of accessibility (not perfect, but | always trying), there's a lot of overlap with various | micro.blog/IndieWeb/fediverse communities, a lot of folks with | active GitHub accounts doing interesting stuff, a strong | photographer contingent, an overarching "positive vibe" as the | kids say, and a clear sense that you don't have to remind the | kind of folks who enjoy using omg.lol that there's a person on | the other side of the keyboard. | | Maybe that still doesn't make much sense to you, but while I'm | happy to pay for cool stuff people make on the internet, I'm | paid up with omg.lol through 2030, which just isn't something I | would do anywhere else. | proxyon wrote: | I on the other hand would happily pay through 2030 to avoid | the people you describe on omg.lol. I dislike pretentious | tech positivity and HR catladies policing my online life. | coldpie wrote: | Cool, man. No one's forcing you to use it. I'm sure you can | find someplace else. | proxyon wrote: | Yeah there's no way I'm hanging out with a bunch of people | salty at Musk because he stopped Twitter from being an old boys | club of internet liberals. | Spivak wrote: | Dude old Twitter was conservative west-coast brand | libertarians and it's silly that people keep confusing them | with liberals for seemingly no other reason than the NAP "as | long as you're not hurting anyone I don't give a shit" means | they're tolerant on social issues when they have basically | nothing else in common with liberals. | proxyon wrote: | They banned a huge chunk of the dissident right, banned the | sitting US president, censored stories harmful to Biden and | promoted stories harmful to Trump. There is no moment where | their thumb wasn't on the scales. Yoel Roth was a pronouns | in bio type of guy along with a huge chunk of the Twitter | staff. Fair to stay they they weren't "conservative west- | coast brand libertarians." | bigstrat2003 wrote: | This is the exact reason I refuse to touch Mastodon - the | people who are Really Mad about Elon's purchase of Twitter | are the exact people who made Twitter so toxic that I avoided | it like the plague. I guess I'm happy that they are self | sorting onto their own platform, but I'm going to stay far | away from it. | rammy1234 wrote: | Is this different from neocities ? | 101008 wrote: | So like Bravenet but in 2023? | httpsterio wrote: | I just joined after reading the post. This wasn't the first time | I've heard of Omg.lol but I wasn't entirely convinced earlier. | | For a long while, I've felt kinda lonely online as all of the | communities and little corners online I've been part off have | slowly died. I guess I've sort of been digitally homeless. | | I really enjoy the latest trends when it comes to indieweb and | digital gardens, people creating their own space instead of | living on closed platforms, so this definitely hit all the marks | for me. I don't think I've bought anything online faster than | just now haha. | | Blake just cost me twenty quid, but I'm happy to vote with my | feet instead of selling my data and attention to big | corporations. | crawsome wrote: | > Section 6.3 We may share personal information in connection | with a corporate transaction, like a merger or sale of our | company, the sale of most of our assets, or a bankruptcy. | | >Section 6.5 Except where explicitly stated to the contrary in | this Policy, in some cases, particularly given the limited | amount and type of information and data collected through | omg.lol, we have not restricted contractors' own use or | disclosure of that information or data. We are not responsible | for the conduct or policies of Stripe, or other contractors. | | INAL but that seems pretty cookie-cutter "Company is not | ruling-out selling your data to others". | | https://home.omg.lol/info/legal | Arch485 wrote: | Also not a lawyer, but that sounds more like "if another | company acquires us, we will give your info to them" and then | separately "Stripe might sell your data; we're not | responsible for them". | | Which is rotally reasonable/expected imho. | computerex wrote: | >... we have not restricted contractors' own use or | disclosure of that information or data. We are not | responsible for the conduct or policies of Stripe, or other | contractors. | | I mean this seems pretty suspect for anyone privacy | focused. | rusk wrote: | Also not legal in Europe where you absolutely are | responsible for the actions of your processors | CaptArmchair wrote: | > Section 8.6 GDPR | | > Part b. omg.lol does not believe its processing of | limited personal data of those outside the United States | (if any) brings it within the jurisdiction of these laws. | | That's a hard disclaimer if there's any. | | I read that as: if you're a European user, we do not | believe you can legally enforce us to honor your rights, | even though we operate within the EEA. | ykonstant wrote: | This is very disappointing, and automatically dismisses | omg.lol as an option for me as a researcher and educator. | jacquesm wrote: | And is illegal to boot. If that's their attitude they | should not allow Europeans to register in the first place | because all it will do is set them up for a confrontation | with the various Data Privacy Offices. And such wilful | language rules out any apologies. | CaptArmchair wrote: | More to the point, the GDPR is quite explicit on here as | well: | | > Article 3.2 goes even further and applies the law to | organizations that are not in the EU if two conditions | are met: the organization offers goods or services to | people in the EU, or the organization monitors their | online behavior. (Article 3.3 refers to more unusual | scenarios, such as in EU embassies.) | | https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/ | | Which is pretty much what happens given that they allow | EU citizens to buy a 20 USD subscription. | rusk wrote: | Worth a shot I suppose | hnbad wrote: | That's also a sovereign citizen level of legalese. It | doesn't matter what omg.lol states it believes. If | anything, this demonstrates clear intent to violate | users' privacy and be non-compliant with international | data protection laws. | | This is largely a moot point as long as omg.lol remains | some guy's side project but given that the ToS explicitly | mentions the possibility of a merger or buyout, this | feels like it's poisoning the well a bit. If there's any | upside to this, it's that this makes a buyout far less | likely because he's essentially saying "yeah, we collect | a ton of personal information but we don't have the legal | consent for any of it and explicitly told users we're not | complying with their regional data protection laws when | it comes to gathering, processing or storing their | personal information". Fair enough for the MySpace era of | Web 2.0 privacy abuse but no longer workable in a world | with the GDPR and its many regional equivalents. | agos wrote: | your comment is spot on. an acquisition is also the | perfect time to have someone trigger an investigation by | the local privacy authority for breach of GDPR and I can | tell with reasonable certainty that the wording on that | ToS is enough to get fined. Until they have a legal | presence in the EU they might get away with it, though. | cderpz wrote: | >omg.lol does not believe its processing of limited | personal data of those outside the United States (if any) | brings it within the jurisdiction of these laws. | | Oh dear. That is definitely not correct. The only way for | omg.lol to not fall under the jurisdiction of the GDPR is | to not offer their services to people living where it | applies. | amne wrote: | And how would the owner go about that? Implement | expensive geo-fences and KYC processes for a market they | are not interested in? If they (EU people) want to use it | .. they should be able to without expecting the same | protections as if the business operates in EEA. | | How did we get here? To where If I spin up a webserver | and charge for access now I'm suddenly forced to lick | your middle finger because you have laws in your country | saying so? | sverhagen wrote: | I'll include the mandatory ianal, but they could even ask | people to indemnify them, or put up a banner saying: you | must be in the US, blah-blah. But they're straight up | saying: don't care about your laws. That seems untenable. | Towaway69 wrote: | Hangon, if go to another country I most certainly have to | follow the laws that apply there. | | If I surf over to another (Internet surfing) country | because the server is physically located in that country, | I again am forced to follow the laws that apply there. | | It does seem illogical to have such setup especially | since physical I haven't moved. | | Now it seems that I can take my laws with me when I visit | a server in another country. Making everything even more | confusing. | | Unfortunately that does not apply to physically traveling | to another country: that country doesn't care two bobs | for my countries laws. | | Edit: INAL. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >If I surf over to another (Internet surfing) country | because the server is physically located in that country, | I again am forced to follow the laws that apply there. | | on the other hand if you go set up a business that sells | to citizens of that other country do you have to follow | rules to be allowed to sell stuff there? You see how the | analogy is a little closer aligned? | qmarchi wrote: | Not really. For Example, I setup a business on the Oregon | side of the Portland, Oregon / Vancouver, Washington | border. Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, should I have to | pay Washington sales tax because I had someone buy | something from my shop in Oregon? | | Same kind of deal, omg.lol have my servers located in the | United States, payment processing happens in the United | States, in United States Dollars. In no way is omg.lol | making a special usecase to handle European customers. | | Now, Europe is free to attempt to excise their laws | againt omg.lol, however they wouldn't get much further | than "you're blocked in the EU" and having to get ISPs | and transit networks to blocke their traffic, and payment | networks to stop serving EU customers for that particular | merchant ID. | TylerE wrote: | If you run a site in the US targeting a primarily US user | base, should you be forced to abide by the laws of Saudi | Arabia? | 8372049 wrote: | The easiest and most reasonable option would be to honor | GDPR and similar laws. | | If you scam people in country A from country B, you're | criminally liable to country A even if it's not a crime | in country B. Same if it's espionage (cf. Assange), | piracy (cf. TPB) and so on. Why should infringing on | privacy rights be any different? | jacquesm wrote: | That's not really that interesting of a question, if the | owner wants to give the finger to the laws of a region | with 300+ million people in it then that's their right, | how they go about doing that in a way that it doesn't | translate into liability (rather than simply respecting | the law with regards to EU subjects) is not something | that we need to solve for them. The choice is theirs, so | are the consequences. | hnbad wrote: | Simple: explicitly state what regions you provide your | service to, optionally use cheap/free IP geolocation to | block users from regions you don't wish to provide your | service in and wherever you have to record a user's | region anyway limit the options to regions you support or | display a warning about your terms of service prohibiting | use from other regions. | | There are plenty of sites that only cater to US users and | have signup forms requiring data like postal addresses or | payment methods that contain regional information. Heck, | some US sites even exclude users from certain states for | various reasons. This service costs money so they need | the user's billing address anyway. Just restrict access | there and then like the rest. | | The guy who created omg.lol did not "spin up a webserver | and charge for access", they run a company that collects, | stores and processes their users' behavioral data and | personally identifiable information. It's more like a | hosting company except it's apparently cobbled together | from various third parties without any due diligence | about how they operate. And it even uses the phrase | "privacy-focused" in various parts of its claims. Yeah, | I'd say it's reasonable to expect a company like that to | provide basic information like what data it collects, how | it ensures that data is protected and how a data subject | can get that data deleted or corrected. | | We have laws preventing corporations from selling | products that are unfit for purpose or food that is | blatantly toxic and we have laws preventing corporations | from offering you contracts that demand personal harm or | indentured servitude. In places like the EU we also have | laws that prevent companies from using your data without | consent and making sure you follow the best current | practices when handling that data. And yeah, if you want | to make a service that collects all data and monetizes | the ever living fuck out of it you can still do that, you | just need to ask your users for consent and allow them to | opt-out if it isn't essential to doing what the users | would want to use the service for (i.e. no bait and | switch). | | I don't know why some people find it so hard to | understand the idea of informed and non-coerced consent. | Levitz wrote: | >How did we get here? To where If I spin up a webserver | and charge for access now I'm suddenly forced to lick | your middle finger because you have laws in your country | saying so? | | You do business somewhere, you have to abide by the laws | of that somewhere. | | As to how did we got here? I don't know. It probably | happened sometime around year 500 BC? | bryanrasmussen wrote: | true they are legally required by EU law to follow GDPR, | but then it gets into enforcement, Facebook et. al might | like to not follow GDPR but they are big enough then have | holdings that the GDPR can take money from. | | If omg.lol does not have any business in EU it is | probably not going to actually be a problem for them | because EU is unlikely to go to U.S court to try to get | money - also because I believe that probably wouldn't | work. | | However | | 1. if they are trying to get purchased by someone they | probably should consider potential buyers probably don't | want to buy a bunch of EU liability. | | 2. they should probably refrain from any sort of ambition | that would give them such a business in the future | because regulators can be really mean when someone does | this kind of funny stuff. | | 3. if they don't pay if called on it maybe there would be | a situation where they would get blocked - not sure about | that but seems reasonable reaction. | underdeserver wrote: | Not a lawyer so I might be reading this wrong - but to me | this says "We might sell the company to someone else, and | they in turn might sell it to anyone", and that's a bit | scarier. | arp242 wrote: | You can't prevent that, not really. That "section 6.3" | applies to every company, but these ToS are a bit more | upfront about it. | mynameisash wrote: | > You can't prevent that, not really. | | Couldn't you simply codify in the ToS that PII or even | most/all historical metadata would be scrubbed upon the | sale of the company? IANAL, but I would assume that a | company could commit themselves in the user agreement in | such a way that it guarantees some protection against | this kind of concern. | arp242 wrote: | You can always change the terms of service; no one would | really notice a detail like this. | | And things like email addresses are "PII", and maybe some | more things that are required to actually run this | business. So "scrub all PII" isn't really a very feasible | thing to do in the first place. | actionfromafar wrote: | You can't _prevent_ it, but you can make it a breach of | contract. | | (Where the new buyer would breach the contract if passing | data on.) | antiframe wrote: | Is forced selling a thing for sole proprietorships? Is | including data in a sale forced? You can prevent that if | you want two ways: | | 1) Don't sell the company 2) Sell the company sans data | (destroy it first) | arp242 wrote: | So your "solution" is 1) never change interests, 2) never | have health problems, 3) never retire, 4) well live | forever basically? | | And no one is going to buy a company stripped of all | customer data. | | This is just not realistic. Any company or website that | lives long enough will change hands eventually, whether | it's "selling" or handing it to your first-born son, or | whatever, for any number of reasons, and when that | happens you lose control. The best you can do is hand it | over to someone you trust (if that's possible), but | nothing is fool-proof. | jacquesm wrote: | No, that's not totally reasonable and expected. Change of | control can be a valid reason for breaking open a previous | arrangement, especially when that change of control negates | the exact reason why people would join this to begin with. | | After all, if your data can be transferred at will to | another entity due to a change of ownership and the | agreement you made can then be annulled (because the new | owners don't care about your privacy as much as the | previous ones) then that's an end-run around the whole | principle. | JohnFen wrote: | I love the idea of the service, but yes, those terms (and the | commentary about the GDPR) are very strong showstoppers for | me. | stcredzero wrote: | _I really enjoy the latest trends when it comes to indieweb and | digital gardens, people creating their own space instead of | living on closed platforms_ | | The way I see the current day situation, re: Elon Musk's | freedom of speech contingency tree -- If X/Twitter and other | social media prospers, it's good for him and he wins. If those | die and people rediscover, "people creating their own space | instead of living on closed platforms," he wins as well. | UberFly wrote: | Does "small internet" have to actively keep themselves small? | What if something is so attractive everyone moves there. All the | problems of big town follow. Always the conundrum. | stevebmark wrote: | It takes blog posts to discover these because Mastodon micro | communities aren't discoverable and no one knows which ones to | sign up for. Mastodon has no long term potential. We're still | waiting for the Twitter replacement. | hiidrew wrote: | https://www.farcaster.xyz/ is an interesting alternative that's | not bluesky | golem14 wrote: | Maybe that's a feature. Early Gopher was similar, and people | adapted by writing hubs/directories. | | Not everyone needs their content to reach record # of visitors. | inamberclad wrote: | What is the long-term potential supposed to be? Is Mastodon | supposed to replace Twitter, or is it supposed to enhance the | lives of people? I'm a member of several small forums that just | don't grow. It's the same people each day, and that's fine. | It's much closer to how human interactions work in real life. | You don't join an ever-expanding pool of people where you | strive to maximize your connections (or at least, I don't). | Instead, you probably have a relatively small group of people | that you hang out with more often. | ClimaxGravely wrote: | Even then I have a small fraction of the followers from | twitter than I do on mastadon and I still get way more | engagement. Both in numbers and quality. It's not oldschool | forums quality but it feels a lot closer. | p-e-w wrote: | Well said. It's astonishing how much the corporate/capitalist | mantra "if you're not growing, you're dying" has taken hold | in the world of open source and free culture. People not only | fail to realize how unsustainable and destructive that idea | is, many don't even seem to know that alternative community | models exist, and have been practiced since forever. | Ridj48dhsnsh wrote: | Not being indexed by search engines is a fatal flaw in my | opinion. There might be some interesting discussions taking | place on Mastodon, but I would have no way of knowing. | aliasxneo wrote: | I like the idea of it, but I also have no idea how one | would find any of these cited discussions. It seems having | an existing social network gives you a strong advantage. As | a lurker, introvert, and ruralite, I think I'm going to be | naturally disadvantaged on these types of platforms. | | Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding the whole design. | frikk wrote: | This is an interesting thought. | | As an analogy, there might be some interesting discussions | happening at my local Community Center, or my neighbor's | house, but I would have no way of knowing. But to discover | these discussions, I would need to meet someone with a | shared interest who would, in turn, share with me a place | that they go to for continued discussions and to hang out | with interesting people who share an interest. | | So maybe, if done correctly, this is a feature? The good | content is one extra network connection away, but easy | enough to find if an advocate chooses to highlight content, | share a connection, or otherwise create an inbound | reference to the community. | lannisterstark wrote: | Yes and wouldn't you like to join it? | | If you had a way to search like "hey there's an | interesting conversation going on at my local community | center, maybe I will go and join their next session." | | wouldn't you? | input_sh wrote: | You have an option in user settings to allow search engines | to index your profile and public posts. (It's off by | default.) | dash2 wrote: | This argument confuses "everybody hangs out with just a few | people" with "a few people hang out with a few people". The | former is a cool idea, sure, but the latter is just a | description of a not-very-successful service. I mean, I like | my local pub, but it isn't HN-worthy. | | Social media is valuable, that's why people use it. It would | be nice if we end up coordinating on social media that aren't | toxic or addictive. Unfortunately mastodon may not make that | happen, as GP said. | smallnix wrote: | So a system that enables thousand if not millions of "pubs" | would be HN worthy? From what I understand that is mastodon | and this article is a success story of a single | instance/"pub". | hnbad wrote: | > Social media is valuable, that's why people use it. | | That doesn't follow. Neither of those two statements seems | self-evident. | | People typically follow social media for a number of | reasons and to my mind novelty and the pretense of a sense | of community are the biggest one. But the latter is usually | just paper thin. In "successful social media" most social | interactions are either fleeting or superficial. You argue | on the Internet with strangers and you pigeonhole them to | fit your biases. The entire focus for social media is to | drive up "engagement" because clicks and views mean more ad | revenue and a bigger "audience". And as the effort of | providing something genuinely interesting is a lot higher | than something provocative (which has the benefit of being | able to simply be an outright lie), that's where social | media inevitably trends towards. | | Pre-social media spaces were a lot more social in the sense | of being communal: IRC chat rooms would have old guard | regulars, often lurking around in case something | interesting pops up; moderation would happen very bluntly | and immediately to set clear house rules about what is or | isn't acceptable behavior. Forums had a much lower | frequency but followed similar patterns. There was a clear | sense of a shared culture if you stuck around long enough | and people would actually avoid hanging around in the | extremely large forums or chat rooms because they were "too | noisy" to have a conversation. It would usually be where | you'd go to seek advice or help you couldn't find elsewhere | and any follow-up would usually happen in a more confined | space like DMs. | | What social media has effectively done is looked at the | extremely large and noisy spaces and decided that this is | what everything should be like by default and then bolted | on some ways to keep track of what conversations you were | having while mixing the ideas of "people that seem | interesting/nice" and "accounts that post interesting | _content_ ", productizing and transactionalizing all social | interactions. Even Mastodon is guilty of this but on the | smaller instances at least the scale is limited by default. | | The problem with social media being the "marketplace of | ideas" is that you normally go to the market to get new | things and then you go to work, go home or go to your | "third place" (e.g. your peer group, your pub, your club | house) where you can all show each other what you got. | Social media wants to be all of those places but because | the marketplace is the only part that makes money, that's | all it delivers. | _heimdall wrote: | Its a really interesting challenge to solve | | Twitter, for example, aimed to be a single, universal town | square. Mastodon follows much closer to forums where you | find yourself in smaller, potentially more tightknit | communities | | Both have pros and cons. I don't expect Mastodon will give | people the same value as social media, but it won't have | some of the downsides either. Similarly, I don't expect | social media will ever be sustainable as a coordination | platform without toxicity and doom scrolling. | TechSquidTV wrote: | Mastodon isn't meant for hosting this kind of content, for the | same reason you aren't meant to put this kind of content on | Twitter. Mastodon is like a social RSS feed reader. | john-radio wrote: | Actually the trending posts I saw when I clicked through to | social.lol (omg.lol's Mastodon instance) are most of the same | posts from my Explore page (the # icon) on urbanists.social, | and most of these posts are not from either of these two | instances but from diverse (and usually individually | interesting!) ones, but please keep enjoying that haterade if | you like the taste. | omginternets wrote: | The reason they're good has a lot to do with how hard they are | to find. | jszymborski wrote: | Just following hashtags and using the discover page works | pretty good for me | metabagel wrote: | It doesn't work for me. A lot of people don't realize that | their posts won't show up in searches on other Mastodon | instances unless they include hashtags. I found it to be a | huge chore to find people posting about topics I was | interested in. I pretty much gave up. | scythe wrote: | Discoverability doesn't always have to be so fast. As long as | the word eventually gets around, maybe a slower kind of | discovery could be good for some communities. | | There's also boardreader.com for finding small communities, | although I don't think it really tilts towards Mastodon very | much. | metabagel wrote: | Discoverability is Mastodon's Achilles heel. | 3abiton wrote: | I'm just curious what is the difference between Mastodon and | Lemmy. I know they are a decentralized clone of Twitter and | Reddit, but at their core 90% similar. Is it just the comment | threads? | janandonly wrote: | Maybe the Nostr protocol and all its implementations (that do | talk with each other) are the true replacement for Twitter? | | Check out some trending people/topics on Nostr here: | https://nostr.band/ | _heimdall wrote: | I've never quite wrapped my head around how any federated | network would compete with centralized social media | platforms, it feels like a solution for a different use case | | Federation means we have numerous copies of every single post | ever shared floating around somewhere, that's a massive waste | of resources IMO. Similarly, the amount of network traffic | grows exponentially as the number of full nodes grows and | again wastes a ton of resources. Those kinds of issues could | be mitigated by limiting the number of full nodes on the | network, but then you are driving towards a centralized | system again. | | Federation works really well when the different groups are | infrequently interacting. Sure there could be a mechanism to | jump into another circle, but if federation means multiple | servers needing to know the entire state of the world the | scaling and coordination problems just don't seem worth it. | hnbad wrote: | This may be an unpopular opinion but there won't be a Twitter | replacement. There may very well be a "next big thing" but it | won't be like Twitter the same way Twitter wasn't like MySpace | or MySpace wasn't like FARK etc (not to say these are in any | way directly related but Twitter certainly wasn't the biggest | social network by far even if it was culturally influential). | | Mastodon exists and it is good at being a federated | microblogging service. Threads exists and it is good at the | metrics it's built to deliver. Bluesky exists and it is good at | being its own little club house. Truth Social exists and it is | good at being Trump's soapbox. Gab exists and it is good at | being whatever it is. | | Twitter hit a magic sweet spot that can't be replicated. It was | also a terrible place even before the cultural shifts | (including those prior to the leveraged buyout). It was the | place celebrities would show their entire ass to journalists | and everyone could tag along to tell them how terrible they | were. It was also the most readily accessible source for | "citizen journalism" with unfiltered live coverage of major | tragedies and other "breaking news" - but this has now become | impossible as it has also become easily accessible to spread | falsehoods that overwhelm any attempt at fact checking. | | X's "revenue sharing" mechanism that effectively monetizes | outrage bait may be what's killing Twitter for good but even | prior to that Twitter was already dead. Heck, Twitter was | always bad even when it was useful. At times the up sides just | outweighed the down sides if you knew how to use it. For many | this involved "not being political" (which is already not an | option if your identity deviates from the "norm" in obvious | ways, e.g. being a woman) and sticking to specific niches. But | the discoverability of these niches is also what made them | prone to the inevitable Twitter drama. | maxlin wrote: | When a blog post starts with saying "twitter is dead" it doesn't | really make it worth reading further. "Twitter is dead" was said | pretty much as numerously as "2 more weeks" but it's off better | than ever, with Community Notes having proved themselves and X | now having proved its capability to serve its main mission by | working as the town square on issues related to OpenAI, Gaza, | etc, etc. | | Eventually, with subscriptions paying most of the bills, I hope | the API access per-client is brought back without extra costs | too. But even without, X does have pretty much everything it | needs, and will only grow with time. You can't put a price on | Freedom of Speech. | twelvedogs wrote: | subscriptions are most of their income, they don't pay the | bills at all | SalmoShalazar wrote: | I thought community notes already existed as bird watch before | the takeover? | patcon wrote: | Yeah, Elon just rebranded it, and pushed fwd its full | deployment | | I was fully bought into the premise of birdwatch due to it | being based on a great tool I've worked with for years | (Pol.is), but Elon seemed to have loved it for all the wrong | reasons, in a way that irked me. He seemingly just wanted to | cut the trust & safety teams, and remove onus of creating | policy :/ | TheAceOfHearts wrote: | Twitter is dead, long live X. Twitter as it was no longer | exists. Regardless of what one may think of Elon's leadership, | he's making big changes to the platform. | | It's a Ship of Theseus argument. How much does a platformm have | to change before it's no longer what it used to be? | enumjorge wrote: | > [Twitter]'s off better than ever | | I'd agree that it's hard to take an opinion seriously that | pronounces Twitter as dead. As you pointed out, when OpenAI's | drama was unfolding, the conversations happened mainly on | Twitter. But saying Twitter's current form is the service at | its best is also hard to take seriously. I tried to follow said | conversation about OpenAI during Altman's ouster and I found | the site to be an inconsistently broken mess. To this day, I'm | still not sure why I'm able to access certain posts without | signing in, but not others. In my experience, the quality of | the discussion on the site as a whole has also taken a hit. | | And again with the whole freedom of speech. It continues to | baffle me how people associate Musk with the first amendment. | He brands himself as a free speech absolutist, but his actions | have continuously shown him to have no problem silencing | critics and playing favorites on the platform. | Timwi wrote: | > When a blog post starts with saying "twitter is dead" | | That's not what they said. They said "it's the day that, for | me, Twitter died." I read that as meaning "I personally don't | want to use Twitter anymore." | | I personally feel the same about Reddit. I was a very regular | reader and contributor, but since the big brouha about third- | party apps I decided that it's dead to me. I'm no longer using | it. That doesn't mean it has died as a platform, but it does | mean that I personally have moved on from it. | jhugo wrote: | I wanted to move on from Reddit when all of that was going | down, but it's really the only place on the Internet where I | could get (just from the memory of the last 24h) a decent | range of discussion/advice from real people about pizza | stones, indoor plants, descaling a coffee machine, learning | piano as an adult, and the answer to the question "TV show | where someone sings Chattanooga Choo Choo", all from a single | website that isn't heavily polluted by ads. As long as | "[query] reddit" makes Google so much better, I can't really | consider Reddit dead. | snailmailman wrote: | "Better than ever" when it's constantly promoting hate speech? | And Elon is too? And advertisers are dipping out? | | And Twitter definitely doesn't have free speech. People still | get banned, or have their posts artificially limited, but they | do allow more hate speech. | | Nearly everyone I followed on Twitter is on Mastodon now. It | works great. Conversations still happen there on news topics. | | I deleted my Twitter account a while back because my feed | stopped being people I followed and became people promoting | conspiracy theories. The site doesn't even work properly | anymore. People link to threads of tweets but only the first | tweet displays. And profiles never show latest tweets. (I think | these might work when logged in? But also don't show any errors | when logged out? I don't know as I'll never login again) | mcintyre1994 wrote: | I'm unconvinced that subscriptions are ever going to make | enough money to pay the bills. Musk has been pretty clear he | needs to get advertisers back. I don't think his approach of | specifically telling Bob Iger to fuck off is going to help with | that, but he isn't hiding that he needs to figure it out pretty | quickly. | prmoustache wrote: | Well twitter doesn't exist anymore so yes it is dead. | | Also it is funny that for a lot of people including me, | slashdot, digg, twitter and reddit are already a thing of the | past while we are still visiting regular old forums. | latexr wrote: | > When a blog post starts with saying "twitter is dead" | | That is not what it says. Please don't straw man and misquote. | | > it's off better than ever | | By which metric? Certainly not financial. | | https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/15/business/twitter-cash-flow-el... | | > X now having proved its capability to serve its main mission | by working as the town square on issues related to OpenAI, | Gaza, etc, etc. | | Those conversations happened all around. There was nothing | special about Twitter. | | > Eventually, with subscriptions paying most of the bills | | That's an astronomical assumption. | | > X does have pretty much everything it needs, and will only | grow with time. | | So does it have everything it needs, or will it grow? Those | don't make sense at the same time. | | > You can't put a price on Freedom of Speech. | | If you're a free speech absolutist, Twitter is _definitely not_ | the platform for you. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet | | https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/elon-musk-turkey-twitte... | | https://thewire.in/tech/musk-twitter-takedown-government-com... | gdsdfe wrote: | Woah people really hate AI on that mastodon instance | smsm42 wrote: | Opened the front page of the "community of the nicest, most | interesting people". Here's what I found, omitting some jokes, | "dear diary", etc (profanity omitted, light rephrasing to keep it | short): | | AI is taking our jobs | | Trump is a liar | | MAGA republicans are plotting against democracy and Trump is | Putin's puppet | | Trump is bad | | AOC is cool, she's showing that evil GOP | | Twitter is dying | | Christians are hateful bigots | | Republicans are Nazis | | Republicans hate women and want them to die | | Ayn Rand is stupid and I already realized it as a kid | | Hunter Biden is an innocent victim of a vast right wing | conspiracy | | Elon Musk is evil and stupid | | Trump is stupid, while Obama is smart | | I didn't search for that on purpose or anything, didn't time it, | just opened the first page at the random moment and scrolled for | a couple of screens. It's not 100% of content, but what I | described is the majority of it. Maybe I got particularly | unlucky. But if I haven't, I fail to recognize how it's different | from 99% of reddit or anywhere else on the internet? Which is the | part I am supposed to be impressed with, where was my nostalgia | for the Internet of the olden days supposed to wake up (and yes, | I was there, Gandalf)? I'm just not getting it. I mean, I have | nothing against people getting together and having one more place | out of millions to discuss all the ways Trump is stupid and evil, | but I feel like that's not exactly what the description in the | article promised me. | elxx wrote: | Anyone can look at the live feed here and see that this is made | up: | | https://social.lol/public/local | | I had to scroll through over 24 hours of posts before hitting | anything political, an article about abortion in Texas. | Definitely not the majority of the content and it took way more | scrolling than a couple of screens. I still haven't seen | anything else on your list yet. | coldpie wrote: | While that guy obviously has an axe to grind, if you visit | the main page of that URL there's plenty of tiresome politics | all over the place: https://social.lol/ It seems to be coming | from different instances, though. I have no idea how Mastodon | chooses what content to show on that page. | smsm42 wrote: | I just went to https://social.lol/ | blakewatson wrote: | Yeah unfortunately that's Mastodon pulling from other | instances. Here's the local timeline: | https://social.lol/public/local | famahar wrote: | Looks fun. I'm considering signing up but I think I'd just be | more happy not having a heavy online presence. Twitter falling | apart made me really enjoy being offline and connecting with | friends and family. Small community is key I find. omg seems like | the right direction in this regard. | Tomte wrote: | I signed up last year when it hit HN big. I didn't really found | access to the community (which is my fault), but I love the | feature set, and am debating with my self whether to extend the | membership. 20 dollars is little to me, but it's another thing in | the back of my mind where "I should do something with it". | | Mastodon totally doesn't interest me, it turned out, that was a | big argument for joining omg.lol back then. | bandrami wrote: | OK, just spent twenty bucks. Don't regret it. | bkeating wrote: | Thought you were referring to https://o.mg.lol/ lol | kennedy wrote: | ohh this is cool | dataengineer56 wrote: | rdrama is the closest thing that I've found to recreating that | "old web" feeling, but it comes with caveats and it's not for the | faint of heart. | mortallywounded wrote: | I'm holding out for omg.lawl | krick wrote: | I never figured out how to use Mastodon and the likes. Can | somebody explain? I mean, I would know how to use it if my goal | was self-indulgent shitposting or very questionable marketing | strategy, but these services are always mentioned as an | alternative to Twitter, and Twitter is primarily a news-feed | (which probably works because some other famous people are | engaged in shitposting and marketing strategies, but this is none | of my concern -- for me it's just a news-feed). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-11 23:01 UTC)