With all do respect the numbers do not back this up. There were less than 200 of these types of deaths in 2021 according NHTSA and thats with a massive increase in cards from the 80s. Almost all danger for children has reduced since that time across all economics groups.
The pressure from parents on other parents has made it so we dont trust children to handle risks that are pretty manageable.
Kids don't walk and bike like they used to. I used to walk alone to visit neighbors on other blocks when I was 5yo in the 80s. Before owning a computer I'd walk or bike to play outside every day it wasn't snowing. And sometimes even then.
No its not, the larger media is the original "for pay algorithm" that shows you what ever makes you engage with their platform more (subscription & ad supported). There is no conspiracy or man behind the curtain.
Simply put, complex stories resonate deeply with a small group and not at all with the majority. What you get from that is the current media landscape. Surveillance is a very complicated technical and moral story that only the smallest group cares about.
Concentration of media ownership has not been a constant factor over the past several decades and several laws have been changed to alter this reality in that time frame. As the purveyors of news get bought up and consolidated, it has almost certainly made this "information control" problem worse.
> Surveillance is a very complicated technical
"The government is spying on you" is not exceptionally complicated or technical. The fourth amendment is widely known and understood.
The media's willful ignorance the Epstein case implies otherwise. This was a vast criminal conspiracy involving sex, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates and Harvard University, the kind of juicy gossip that the average person goes crazy over, and the mainstream media knew about it for years, but chose not to report it.
The media was complicit in the coverup until it could be ignored no longer. They did the opposite of what an honest news media is supposed to do, and helped suppress one of the decades biggest news stories. That certainly implies something, and directly contradicts the "media just gives people what they want" meme/excuse.
There's plenty of sex related scandals that go on all the time that are 'open secrets' so to speak, another famous one being Harvey Weinstein. On one hand you can go in the conspiracy direction and say everyone was colluding to keep it secret, but on the other hand you can think about how little strong evidence there was and how these kinds of people would be very eager to sue for defamation if you accused them of anything.
Which creates a world where powerful people can get away with crimes and the victims are ignored even after they come forward. That means actual criminal conspiracies with powerful men pulling the strings.
Well yes, in capitalist countries generally rich people can get away with a lot of things others can't, in fact you can broaden that to any country or organization really. I'm well aware of what went on with Epstein, and if anything that goes against the idea that he's all powerful and can get away with anything, otherwise why would there have been any case against him in the first place?
Regulators responsible for anti trust enforcement only give lip service to the laws they are meant to enforce. The rest of the time their lips are firmly pressed up against the asses of the people they are meant to regulate.
Hah, its all protected by the proof of violence state. When someone is physically trying to take your assets, your going to convert that currency as fast as possible into physical force or protection.
The problem is a deep misunderstanding of currency. The structure of currency is a tool humans use to exert and identify power within groups. The idea that a decentralized currency will change human nature or goals to control miss the forrest for the trees.
We are animals the violence, control and waning and waxing dominance is the only predictable outcome.
That's a darker picture than what actually it is. Violence is mostly driven by lack of resources. When humans can co-operate for better outcomes, they usually do (or at least the successful societies).
> The problem is a deep misunderstanding of currency. The structure of currency is a tool humans use to exert and identify power within groups. The idea that a decentralized currency will change human nature or goals to control miss the forrest for the trees.
I agree with this. Most people see currency as money or wealth when, in reality, it's a representation of the structure of the system. That's why some countries are experiencing high inflation: It's not the printing of money but rather a symptom of deep internal problems within their economy. See Argentina for example.
Sure, we arent always violent, but there always be people wanting what others have and imbalance otherwise there would be no relative value established.
Great example. I dont think its a bug that crypto is almost fully adopted by people who come from means. People are living in very different systems even in the US currently
I completely agree. The fact that major subreddits all have Discord servers definitely speaks to Discord addressing some community need that Reddit is not.
Reddit Chat is my prime example of a Product Development Vice President rushing out a feature-clone of a complementary business to try and juke the stats for their OKRs. Buggy, annoying, pushy, rude. Reddit Chat is why I now visit Incognito and interact less.
Reddit literally destroyed independent forums. That's such a huge swath of the internet and they effectively have a monopoly. Additionally, they top Google results for so many different subjects. I don't understand why they can't monetize that more.
They shouldn't also need to half heartedly try to compete with Discord. They should drill down on what they excel at.
Even though I am a daily Reddit user, it's mostly because there are no other alternatives. I definitely would not buy their stock.
I keep running into niche areas where the discussion group is on Facebook. Which annoys me to no end as I hate Facebook, but that's where the action is. It's not obvious to me that Facebook couldn't eat reddit's lunch.
I feel like every year in the past decade there has been some new Reddit clone. Reddit itself was open source for a while, so it used to be really easy. They never catch on.
I’m hoping some of these catch on but it seems those who are entrenched with power over social communications keep deplatforming these or character attacking them as some kind of extremist haven when most aren’t: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/oioeot/...
Tildes has been around a few years now I believe. I tried it in its early days, and checked it out again just now. Both times I’ve been impressed - it tends to have higher-quality comments and feel less… generally vapid that modern Reddit.
I used tildes for the better part of a year, unfortunately for me the cliquish nature and the fact that there are 12-15 power users with half the posts, who also congregate on the offsite discord, really ruined the website for me. I respect deimos and his goals greatly, but his community quickly became stressful to deal with.
It does sort of make me wonder what community need Reddit fulfills - discoverability/searchability? Single login? - because it's sort of a weird halfway house between forums (differing in that not searching, and duplicating an old thread is somewhat necessarily okay) and chat.
1. Relatively easy to create a subforum.
2. Someplace you can post [pseudo]anonymously.
3. Has a critical mass of people.
4. Is accessible to anyone on the web.
There's a subreddit for all sorts of topics, and if there isn't one, it's fairly easy to just start one. You don't have to deal with setting up forum software or paying someone for it, and if you want to you can create a post with a pseudoanonymous throwaway account. It's really easy to come and go, and there's enough moderation that it hasn't in general devolved into a *chan-style environment, but not so much it's alienating.
Pseudoanonymity is maybe underappreciated in social networking I think. It's really a key feature. Once you reach some mainstream critical mass, having that feature really moves things along.
If you could replicate those four things in a decentralized way, it might take off. But there's a chicken-and-egg issue with network effects.
What I mean is, Reddit to me seems a step closer to something like Discord. And yet Discord is apparently still necessary; so why Reddit, and not traditional forum + Discord?
I added 'single login' as an after thought, because it didn't occur to me at first, but I think that must be a big reason. But even then there's Discourse, with not single but much easier and OAuth (signup/)login.
The default state of a Discord is hidden. You need an invite link to join a "server." It is set up in a way that your meeting point is outside of Discord, usually real life, at least per their marketing material (irl groups are probably the most value in terms of ad revenue).
Reddit has a standardized layout, you don't have to learn a new interface. It has single sign on, so you don't have to create a new account to participate in a community (low friction) and it has the people. Also, it has the voting concept which helps filter content so you aren't having to do that yourself by scanning topics.
A "classic forum" trying to get off the ground would be competing with all of that. You could also argue, "why Discord? Why not IRC?" for much the same reasons.
Yes, that is exactly what I suggested in comment previous to (up-thread of) the one you replied to.
As I said there, there is also Discourse, with only slightly more multi-community friction really, making it far easier and more standardised to do initial sign-up.
I disagree, it's a totally different market, and your remark only makes sense in a myopic "everything is a competing social network" sort of way.
2 core features of Discord are voice chat and access control, both of which are necessary for groups like a guild in a video game. Adoption in small groups like that was huge, competitors like Teamspeak and Mumble had incredible friction.
Even if you focus specifically on text communications, access control is a major feature. One example is the integration with Twitch, where there are servers limited to subscribers. Reddit focused on "the whole site is a community" rather than Discord's "start your own community, limited to very specific people."
I'd argue that the overlap you see is Discord monopolizing a disjoint market and then encroaching into Reddit's market due to userbase size. "Why isn't there a Discord server?" is the sort of question that gets asked when everyone there is also on Discord.
Personally, what amazes me is that Discord allowed Slack to grow to what it is. I was very surprised when they doubled down on gaming focus.
Discord is a solution that fits between the vastly better voice solutions in Teamspeak & Mumble/Murmur, and the much more enterprise features of Slack. As a pure chat solution it is way inferior to IRC or XMPP, however it has greater interactivity ala Slack. What it does really well is blend enough features from each into a coherent product that can replace them all in one go.
People assume reddit is just the "reddit homepage", but its actually a series of long tail discussion groups. Want to discuss Ubiquiti wifi appliances and configurations? Guess what there's a whole community on reddit that is active there.
Discord essentially has this too but actually much more privately/invite only style. I could probably find an Ubiquiti owners group there too.
They are both popular forums to discuss games. If you want to join an online community around a game you play, reddit is an obvious choice. Discord has become some kind of awful de facto standard filling the same use case.
But at the same time, Discord is also built with Ventrilo-like features, which I think helped them gain foothold among many gamers. Lots of people are on voice chat in Discord while playing games together, just like people used to use Ventrilo. And Discord is more like IRC than like Reddit, except unlike IRC it has native rich text and media embeds. But what I mean by how it’s more like IRC is that it’s rooms with text conversations happening in a timeline, instead of mainly threads with comments. Reddit sorts comments by votes by default.
Additionally, Discord has private rooms suitable for small groups. Reddit as a platform is not so suitable for small groups of friends, even though it supports private subreddits.
And speaking of IRC, even some games like the original Quake used IRC for in game chat right? And Twitch the video streaming platform used to have its chat built on IRC but I don’t know if it still is. Either way, it’s evident that it is more suitable for real time conversation.
Reddit meanwhile made a half-assed attempt at real time chat, and it’s not good. I kind of wish they had just stuck with being what they were but I suppose at least trying is a good idea even so. But I don’t think their real time text chat is compelling nor competitive with Discord text chat.
> And speaking of IRC, even some games like the original Quake used IRC for in game chat right? And Twitch the video streaming platform used to have its chat built on IRC but I don’t know if it still is. Either way, it’s evident that it is more suitable for real time conversation.
Sure, IRC is all delivery and no permanence. But Discord is the opposite of that; it's all permanent forum posts.
"More suitable" is a weird thing to say. They refer to different things. IRC is a transport protocol. Discord is a website. The logical comparison would be between IRC and HTTP.
That's not a difference in what they do or even in how they're used. There are plenty of subreddits that rely on real-time interaction between posters; arranging pokemon trades is an obvious example.
If I make a comment in a large Discord server, and then put my phone back in my pocket and continue my day, I am very unlikely to actually see any responses to what I said.
Discord will alert you to their existence, highlight them for you, navigate you straight to them, and jump you back to your original comment so you can read forward from there. That last option doesn't even require your responses to be marked as responses to you.
If you don't see the responses, that's because you didn't want to.
But "Read forward from there" is often just way too much text, with no clear delineation between different topics other than reading it. Reddit encapsulates topics into their own spaces that can live outside of an ever-increasingly long scrolling text screen.
I regularly get so far behind on channels in an 11 person server that I just give up on reading whatever I missed that day. If Discord and Reddit can serve functionally identical purposes in your life, that's fine, but to deny that they have any functional differences to anyone is just provably false.
Lots of subreddits have a discord community, but i dont think vice-versa. communities are overlapping, and at some point admins will have to make a choice which one they will put their energy into. Some fringe subjects have moved from one to the other.
They are both effectively threaded chats. Discord a bit more real time than Reddit and lower volume. But definitely can see people migrating from Reddit to Discord. Especially for smaller subs.
Worse yet, this culture of shaming people for changing their minds/position is embarrassingly unintellectual and socially dangerous. Its one the most toxic attributes leftover from old timey gender role ideas.
Its tough. Parenthood also have a pretty varied time horizon for reward depending on what someone finds rewarding. imo, this whole study is kind of misframed and isnt much different than "25% of people find work to be bad."
The pressure from parents on other parents has made it so we dont trust children to handle risks that are pretty manageable.