I searched the #askhubski archive, and didn't see anything quite like this. Funnily enough, when I was searching for the thread that inspired this, I came across @advancedapes@'s latest post about the future of the internet, but that's not the "future" that I'm looking at.
As a migrator from Reddit a few months ago, and someone who has dabbled in the .onion network, Hubski was a great "what's next" for me, with its high level of informed discussion and opinion. At one time, Reddit was "what's next" for me, after things like billboards. Now, things like Twitter, reddit, and (positively or negatively) 4chan are becoming more and more mainstream.
So my question is, Hubski, What's next? what is the next "lesser-trodden" area of the internet that you're heading towards? What is the next application or social media or community that is attracting early adopters?
I'm particularly interested in answers from people like kleinbl00. While I have never met them personally, their arguments and interactions in the "Ask Hubski, Reposts, and the Better Angels of our Nature" thread left me with the impression that they are the kind of person who is continually attempting to outrun the Eternal September that started in the early 1990s. Where are you going now, if waves of people like me are starting to drive you away from Hubski and other places like it?
I've never seen early adoption in action, and I think it would be at least be interesting to see it, or try it, even if I find it's not for me.
Full disclosure: I damn near am Eternal September. Buddy had a CompuServe account to go with his Gateway2000 (back when they were Gateway2000!) in '92. Me? I got my first email address in September '94, first surfed the visual web in Mosaic in October '94, and was knee-deep in UseNet by November '94. Gotta say - maybe it was pure as driven snow the year before I got there but by the time I was mixing it up, alt.anything and rec.anything looked a lot like Reddit comments. Here, watch this. Honestly, the whole movie is worth watching, but that "it was just '66… and early '67" fuckin' nails it. The Internet has always sucked for communication. It may get better, but there's this halcyon glow around Reddit pretty much for "just 2008… and early 2009." And while I've said some mighty complimentary things about Reddit, I said them back when there was still a chance of it getting better, not worse. I'll say this: everything I've seen tells me the New York Times is right about paywalls. Ryan Holiday sides with them. Paul Carr sides with them. The economics are actually for it, if you look at it. Let's say you've got a budget of $10,000 a month. Your site's click-through rate is 1 percent (very high) and your cost-per-click is 30 cents (great). How many eyeballs do you need on your content in order to make your budget? Three million hits. Three million and a bunch of threes, but three million hits. Let's say you've got a budget of $10,000 a month. You're charging subscribers a dollar a month. How many subscribers do you need in order to make your budget? Ten thousand. Ten thousand subscribers. Obviously there's wiggle in there but we're still two orders of magnitude below the crazy numbers. Doesn't SomethingAwful charge a dollar a month in order to turn off ads and release the obscenity filter? It's a nuisance fee, really, but multiply it by a few thousand subscribers and suddenly it's money. I've been giving a dollar a month to somafm for like, eight years now and I barely notice. You can't get coffee for that. I know that my favorite websites aren't crawled by robots.txt. Three of my favorite communities are invisible to Google. There's something to be said for exclusivity: check the comments for something on TPB, then check them on what.cd (we won't even get into the darker corners of the world). If you can keep out the riffraff, you win, pretty much forever. I've got one online community where my first "featured" post was nearly ten years ago, and the community is largely the same. The calibre of discussion hasn't diminished much. Some of the names have changed, but not all of them. I think that, in this age of Cracked, HuffPo, QZ, Upworthy and all the rest of the clickbait bullshit, we'll start to see communities that do not let you register by default. That do not let you wander through and post comments like an angry toddler. That are curated for the defense of their existing userbase because they recognize that their existing userbase matters. This is one thing I like about Hubski - every now and then mk hits a sweet spot that promotes interaction with new blood without driving out the old. It gives me hope that it can be done, and that we needn't flock from oasis to oasis like angry locusts looking for conversations to strip down to "this" and "lol upvote." But I think it's also important to remember that many of those verdant pools on the horizon were mirages.
I agree. Only on the web are publishers so willing to dilute and pervert their product to such a degree. Perhaps it is in part because many of the folk that run these companies cannot see the internet as a real place. However, it's more real. This medium is living. The NYT had the sense to walk back from the precipice. I agree with your math, and the click route devours quality. Over time, we have talked about a paywall, invites, and a number of other up front filters. Obviously, I still believe it can be done without them. I hope it can, and not just because I don't want Hubski to fail. I want that place to exist.I think that, in this age of Cracked, HuffPo, QZ, Upworthy and all the rest of the clickbait bullshit, we'll start to see communities that do not let you register by default. That do not let you wander through and post comments like an angry toddler. That are curated for the defense of their existing userbase because they recognize that their existing userbase matters.
You should read Ryan Holiday's book. He makes a compelling argument that the Internet as we see it now is pretty much where journalism was back in the days of broadsheets and corner cryers, where you needed to grab the attention of random passers-by every.single.DAY because if you didn't sell everything you printed, you lost money. He further argues that journalism, as we understand it, didn't really exist until the New York Times started selling subscriptions so that they could report on the news, rather than make it up in hopes of selling papers. The fact that the same company uses the same algorithm to generate eHow article topics and Cracked article topics says a lot about the way the Internet is organizing itself somatically. And frankly, the fact that we did this a hundred years ago and the edifice came crumbling down within a decade says even more.
Ok, I'll add it to the list. I have actually slated The End of Food as my next read. b_b got the recommendation from you, and he says he can't put it down. I'm convinced that the next phase of media will involve the readership in an intrinsic way. However, it will take time before publishers can see that the costs of solving our problems and risking open-ended synthesis are less than what can be gained. Readers will begin to share some of the authority that the publishers cede.
i don't know if you're interested in sharing, but what ARE those three communities invisible to google?
I think remembering and accounting for your original user base is a better way of getting reliable and routine views on your content. Everyone wants to grow and explode out of control, but there's something to be said for the slow, steady tree-growth method over the fast moving but short lived ivy-growth method.
Hence just about my favorite article about the internet, ever.I think that, in this age of Cracked, HuffPo, QZ, Upworthy and all the rest of the clickbait bullshit, we'll start to see communities that do not let you register by default. That do not let you wander through and post comments like an angry toddler. That are curated for the defense of their existing userbase because they recognize that their existing userbase matters.
Humans having power over other humans doesn't scale. Unless all of them are as "rational" as Yudkowsky's legions. LessWrong sometimes scares me a bit, but Yudkowsky is such an extraordinary writer that I brave it anyway.Moderation just doesn't scale.
Believe it or not, you are still witnessing it here. We have felt these waves not so much because they are big, but because we are still small. You too can one day wax nostalgic about the good old days of Hubski and explain to the noobs how they are doing it wrong.I've never seen early adoption in action, and I think it would be at least be interesting to see it, or try it, even if I find it's not for me.
Already on it, mk ;) Edited to say, I try to take a non-confrontational, non-prescriptive stance when I see potential "changes." However, I like discussing them with the community and seeing if my barometer is totally off. In addition, I really thought the Reposts/AskHubski/Better Angels post generated some great discussion and my favorite part was seeing everyone's different opinions, and different they really all were. So even though maybe it might seem like I get...oh...hate to use the word but potentially angsty about the status of a website on the Internet - I definitely get a lot of value bringing these thoughts to the community and hearing what they have to say.
Yeah I'm with you on the obvious answer. Going to extreme lengths to achieve privacy not just to break the law but also in your everyday internet experience will be the norm as opposed to the exception pretty soon. So TOR, non-indexable websites.
I see cryptocurriencies becoming more user-friendly and mainstream. I'm not putting my money on any one currency lasting, but I think we'll go through a small cycle of upcoming and dying currencies. These currencies will work well for online microtransactions and donations to website owners, which is why I think they will be increasingly supported.