I really think both sides of the coin have something to offer. One thing I like about larger communities is just the shear amount of content and discussion you can see, especially if you have a lot of time to kill. That being said I am VERY much enjoying interacting in a smaller community - haven't done that in like a decade.
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37712 readers
339 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think more content is a double edged sword though. I find I used Reddit to second guess myself a ton, like which thing to buy, whether I should like something, etc.
In a smaller community, I'm left to think more for myself since I can't just offload that to the group.
Sometimes that data is really useful, but I think I've gotten too dependent. So a SM diet was absolutely in order. And as you said, I'm very much enjoying it. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks as the Reddit situation resolves one way or another.
Yeah, I keep saying this to people when they worry about fragmentation. Like it's important to have all the Baseball fans in the same Baseball forum under one big banner.
No, that's not better, that's worse. What you want is a thousand interconnected forums with 100 people each, not a forum with 100,000 people.
How is community engagement better in a interconnected forum compared to a single forum consisting of all the participants? I'm asking out of ignorance
How would cross community discussions take place?
to start with, ive had more vibrant, long and interesting conversations more often on a site of 300-3,000 as opposed to a sub with millions.
I can imagine small communities spread across. By virtue of its size, there are high chances of topics staying relevant too.
I am concerned about small bubbles though. Discussions in single instances that never bounce across to similar communities in other instances but I suppose that's putting the cart before the horse
realistically the same thing happens on reddit, any sub not big enough is very unlikely to ever be featured on the home page, and this is not always a bad thing, some communities are not interested in being featured, some are brigaded as a prize.
@honeyed_coffee For the reasons the OP mentioned. Familiar faces, being recognized in a community instead of being just today's main character.
In a single large forum most participants are silent, as they must be or it'd be a cacophony. Many are silent out of worry that they need to say something good enough to impress a hundred thousand people, not just something interesting to their local 100 friends.
On Fediverse things escape their local instances and their local forum-groups by boosts mostly.
As karma mattered more you lost a whole subset of regular posters that felt kamra took a relaxing pastime and made it into a job. Karma was used as a kind of stopgap for the issue of managing the cacophony in a busy thread, which made the points matter even more and caused even more people to disengage.
Personally, I found that karma led to self-censorship of any idea that remotely deviated from the group consensus.
Can you think of alternatives to voting, though? Sorting always requires some curating system that isn't random but I can't think of any that would be robust to group consensus
I don’t think user voting in of itself is a problem. It’s the consequences of large negative voting that causes the real problems. In Reddit, a single unpopular comment on a popular subreddit could send a casual Redditor into negative karma which effectively shadowbans them from Reddit. As a result, you see people deleting their comments to stop the bleeding. Controversial opinions are punished severely.
The way I see it, it's like a small world model with layers and emerging hierarchies, instead of being flat.
I can see pros and cons. More people all at once gives greater odds of some unique perspective to take hold that would otherwise only be seen in a single smaller sub community. But there’s also a more vested interest in the health of “your” community if it’s smaller.
Baseball is a fun example because I’m really sad the biggest group so far has only like 80 subscribers. I NEEEEEED my fix of baseball chatter so I really want that one to grow, lol.
IDK, it seems that once a community gets big enough, it devolves into an echo chamber so the unique perspectives get drowned out. Sometimes the unique perspectives wins and slowly propagates through the community, and sometimes the unique perspective gets buried, but uniqueness is rarely highlighted.
For example, I used to be active in /r/personalfinance (kind of a cesspool imo), and there have been times when my perspective won out and I saw it get parroted (often incorrectly), and I was later corrected by yet another perspective and that one got buried and to this day people are parotting my incomplete perspective instead of the more correct perspective. I tried correcting it, but ended up giving up.
So a community needs to be big enough to have diversity, but not so big that the hive mind takes over. I think that magic number is somewhere around 10-100k people.
Could not agree more. I said basically this, less eloquently after a day of being on sh.itjust.works.
What's even cooler here is I feel we have the opportunity to have neighboring villages: I'm a villager in my instance, you're a villager in your instance, and civility and understanding is promoted because we are in a real sense representatives of our respective villages. We don't want to make our villages look bad.
As these instances & communities stabilize and mature over the coming weeks/months, I'm very excited to see what happens next.
Well met, fellow villager named… uh… Barbarian
This link and the type of discussion it's already generated gives me so much hope for the future of Beehaw. This place is something special and I hope it is able to continue being a village. Thanks for the share.
What's beehaw? I'm on fedia. 😉
I must say, I was always a stranger on Reddit and everyone was a stranger to me. I was there for the interesting links and discussions, but never for the people or the community.
Being a jerk wasn’t the norm, so it wasn’t as bad as portrayed in the article, but it certainly wasn’t a village at any point. Sure, I visited many small subs all the time, so those places could have been villages, but I was always a traveler, constantly on the move. If I noticed a particular username, I was nearly guaranteed never to see that name again, so I never really paid much attention to the thousands of names I would inevitably forget.
I hear a lot of people talk about how Reddit was full of terrible people. I very rarely saw these people though. Not sure if their voices got down-voted, or maybe I simply stayed away from the communities they gravitated to. Personally I never really browsed Reddit home screen, I just bookmarked the communities I liked and went directly to their pages. So maybe that's how I missed out on a lot of it.
That said, I did se quite a bit of nonsense when browsing gaming forums. PC gamers hating console gamers, xbox gamers mocking ps gamers and vice-versa. Never did understand peoples need to be superior in the gaming world. These are all just methods of enjoying the same hobby!
For those curious about the term
Wow, that was a great read!
Not this part tho
From mobile app stores to Steam, from Facebook to Twitter, this is the enshittification lifecycle
Steam started off shit and got better. Unshittification?
True, you're right about that! I spent most of the article wondering when they were going to justify that claim, then they didn't so I just kinda discarded it 😂
Aka probably written by chatgpt
One underrated thing that keeps the village going is the police. Or, in our case, the mods.
I know, I know! Everyone hates the mods - with their over-inflated egos and unaccountable practices and their capricious banning of innocuous subjects.
But life without the mods means a village where rioters run rampant.
Absolutely, but if the values are spread across the whole community, the village can self-govern itself and enforce the rules without force. If the majority of the villagers don't tolerate something makes the job of a police much easier.
I think that's a lovely idea - which doesn't work in reality. At some point someone will need to be cast out. That can't be done by peer pressure, because scammers, spammers, and griefers don't care about that.
Individual blocks also don't work because they leave unaware users open to being abused.
Sure, you could have a town council vote on a block, or have software which blocks a user for all if they have been blocked >=N times, but that's still moderation.
This is why I think downvoting submissions/comments is needed. I like how Hacker News forum does it. You need to have a certain number of upvotes on your contributions to even be able to downvote, and if the comment or a reply receives a lot of downvotes it gets greyed out or collapsed.
But again, ability to downvote is not enough, users needs to be aligned on what they want their community to look like. In case of HN, a very devoted and unique community, theres no patience for low effort, agresive and funny without a cause submissions. Their Guidelines itself is a really wonderful read.
As a counter-argument, I never liked this. Because everyone who disagrees gets silenced and even made invisible.
During covid, it was pretty much impossible to disagree that we all must be vaccinated and isolated, or suggesting that natural immunity is much better than vaccinating for younger people. Only afterwards has it become accepted as the truth. During covid, you would be called a conspiracy theorist for talking about natural immunity instead of vaccines.
Even if you don't agree with this specific point, I wanted to bring it up and show how it creates a complete echo chamber and makes sure everyone seems to agree, because people who don't are silenced.
This means most people will not see that there is another way of seeing things, and they will believe that only one solution is possible.
Same thing with war scenarios. If you don't agree there should be a war, you are called unpatriotic. So many ways people get silenced. I think we should avoid that.
Well, your COVID example is a pretty good example for how downvoting actually works for regulating communities. Because like, y'know not vaccinating young people is factually wrong and saying opinions about that were suppressed is conspiratorial thinking
Dropping that antivax example is pretty sus
Natural immunity to covid has never been accepted as better. You're still a conspiracy theorist with very dangerous things to say
Just sneak it in with some exaggerated examples no one supported and hope nobody calls you on it...