zlacker

> .. but the problem is that tech like this is a cheap commodity in a massively oversaturated space, and without a hook that makes the platform exceptional (innovative/clever/beautiful design, unique aggregation features, inherently interesting content, reimagined user/content/moderation dynamics etc etc), this kind of thing is dead in the water because it lacks a network effect.

How about said hook being? "absence of dark patterns" .. which is possible because of stable funding, so there's no enshittification dynamic needed to make money.

>>ephbit+(OP)
This is definitely the idea, but are there enough educated consumers willing to spend money to avoid being trapped in shittified experiences? That's the question that matters.

>>ephbit+(OP)
Funneling money toward karma farmers is a dark pattern.

>>jeremy+Q
“Enough” is relative, how many do you really need to sustain the site?

>>Zetice+8a
Paying the servers is not enough. For it to have a future, it really needs paid employees. See also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZpDnRCeef2CLEFeKM/money-the-...

>>jeremy+zf
Couldn't disagree more, both on future vision of what this could be, as well as the implication that I said, "paying the servers is enough." "Sustain the site" involves growing the site, but none of that involves obtaining millions of users.

Also lesswrong is a cesspool of pseudointellectual bullshit. Eliezer Yudkowsky's ideas don't stand up to reality on average, and the people who "follow" him tend not to understand the relationship between methods of thinking about the world and methods of predicting how the world will behave.

>>Zetice+hx
I agree about LW in general, but I also found the idea of paying people to get things done to be a good one nonetheless.