Ruqqus, an open source Reddit clone, is shutting down their main instance(ruqqus.com)
ruqqus.com
Ruqqus, an open source Reddit clone, is shutting down their main instance
https://ruqqus.com/+Ruqqus/post/dns3/end-of-an-era
105 comments
Well, pretty much to be expected. Saw that lots of subs that got banned attempted to move to Ruqqus, but they never gain any traction. Reddit as a platform is just far too convenient - lots of people won't visit an entirely new website for just one sub in their feed.
The downfall of ruqqus began when they (ruqqus) banned mgtow, who had migrated from reddit after a ban there, and a bunch of other guilds, and failed to provide a good reason for that or evidence of broken rules. This contrasted sharply with the free speech forum promise that ruqqus had been promoting before. Then the ruqqus admins said that they "pivoted" to be more an open source project and less a free speech community. And then of course everyone just left and ruqqus became a wasteland.
I tried using the site and used it for a while, for what little non political and non flame war content it had. It got boring.
I don't particularly like some of the UX decisions and features, but overall it is a pretty well built piece of software.
I don't believe ruqqus federates, so "instance" would be the wrong word. It's a standalone server.
I don't particularly like some of the UX decisions and features, but overall it is a pretty well built piece of software.
I don't believe ruqqus federates, so "instance" would be the wrong word. It's a standalone server.
If you're interested in a federated Reddit clone, check out Lemmy: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy
I'm very familiar with Lemmy, I had contributed to it a bit in it's early development.
I like it, but in particular I think some UX design that apply to reddit and any other centralized link aggregator don't make sense in a federated system, multi communities on one server are fine but the way they're implemented in Lemmy is too Reddit like to be fully useful in a federated network.
I like it, but in particular I think some UX design that apply to reddit and any other centralized link aggregator don't make sense in a federated system, multi communities on one server are fine but the way they're implemented in Lemmy is too Reddit like to be fully useful in a federated network.
The use of the term "instance" to describe a deployed instance of software predates federated software like mastodon.
I think this is a good place to mention O'Sullivan's First Law: "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O'Sullivan_(columnist)
Any platform that establishes itself as a result of a purge from a left-wing dominated platform like Reddit will start out as explicitly right-wing and will struggle to gain non-partisan membership. That new platform will get its reputation tainted for being a place for extremism - even if it permits both left-wing and right-wing views. The left-wing folks won't see a need to join the new platform because they already have the existing one to feel comfortable in. They are content to let the new platform be seen as a hotbed for right-wing radicalism, continue to smear its reputation, and then wait for it to whither and die.
On the flip side, any platform that starts out as non-partisan eventually gets dominated by left-wing / left-leaning folks. I personally have seen this happen countless times on subreddits individually, then reddit as a whole. I sense that this is because activists on the left tend to naturally gravitate towards becoming moderators and establishing new forum rules whenever they take over. Most of the new rules are unobjectionable but questionably appropriate. "No Racism / Homophobia / Transphobia" is a fine rule, but is it really necessary in a woodworking subreddit? The other kind of rules are more subtle and easy for moderators to abuse, like "be friendly", which can be applied against right leaning folks and ignored when left leaning folks get confrontational. Eventually the conservative/right folks get drowned out by agenda-posting and getting downvoted en-masse. They either self-censor, just accept the downvotes and keep posting, get banned, or try to leave for a new forum.
Any platform that establishes itself as a result of a purge from a left-wing dominated platform like Reddit will start out as explicitly right-wing and will struggle to gain non-partisan membership. That new platform will get its reputation tainted for being a place for extremism - even if it permits both left-wing and right-wing views. The left-wing folks won't see a need to join the new platform because they already have the existing one to feel comfortable in. They are content to let the new platform be seen as a hotbed for right-wing radicalism, continue to smear its reputation, and then wait for it to whither and die.
On the flip side, any platform that starts out as non-partisan eventually gets dominated by left-wing / left-leaning folks. I personally have seen this happen countless times on subreddits individually, then reddit as a whole. I sense that this is because activists on the left tend to naturally gravitate towards becoming moderators and establishing new forum rules whenever they take over. Most of the new rules are unobjectionable but questionably appropriate. "No Racism / Homophobia / Transphobia" is a fine rule, but is it really necessary in a woodworking subreddit? The other kind of rules are more subtle and easy for moderators to abuse, like "be friendly", which can be applied against right leaning folks and ignored when left leaning folks get confrontational. Eventually the conservative/right folks get drowned out by agenda-posting and getting downvoted en-masse. They either self-censor, just accept the downvotes and keep posting, get banned, or try to leave for a new forum.
There is a more general law that has nothing to do political leaning that was coined by someone who's community generally disproves your point.
moot, creator of 4chan, has a talk or blog post (can't find it now) detailing this exact dynamic. There are plenty of times moot banned discussion of a certain topic (not even politically relevant), those users would get mad and start their own chan. That chan would eventually be a community of people who just post about how they hate 4chan and continue to be contrarian until they died. Community building is hard and you can't build a platform around being anti-the-other-platform. I think it's fashionable to call these "new platforms" right wing, but this is not a new trend and its something common you would see in the phpBB days of the forum, except instead of the new platform being "right wing", it was that the old platform was fascist because the moderator was an asshole. That said, 4chan is a platform you can clearly point that started out non-partisan. Before Trump 4chan was pro-occupy Wall Street. The community, on its own, became more right wing without overtly advertising itself as such. Over time however it's clear that /pol/ is a far right platform and there was no need for it to splinter off from everything. The lack of robust right wing communities online has more to do with community building rather than self-censorship. A rightwing community has to be exclusionary from the start, and it's hard to bootstrap a community that must ostracize a portion early members.
It's my view, that globally in the western world, that conservatism is actually just a very loud minority position. The loudest conservative folks tend to act the most anti-social and ultimately tend to get ostracized. This ostracism as a result of their anti-social behavior leads to some persecution complex that they are being pushed out when in reality they just hold a minority position. The "no racism" rules are required because when said person gets banned for calling someone a n*gger who was just posting an image of a birdhouse, they tend to be the most pedantic about rules. Most normal people just don't want to deal with that.
moot, creator of 4chan, has a talk or blog post (can't find it now) detailing this exact dynamic. There are plenty of times moot banned discussion of a certain topic (not even politically relevant), those users would get mad and start their own chan. That chan would eventually be a community of people who just post about how they hate 4chan and continue to be contrarian until they died. Community building is hard and you can't build a platform around being anti-the-other-platform. I think it's fashionable to call these "new platforms" right wing, but this is not a new trend and its something common you would see in the phpBB days of the forum, except instead of the new platform being "right wing", it was that the old platform was fascist because the moderator was an asshole. That said, 4chan is a platform you can clearly point that started out non-partisan. Before Trump 4chan was pro-occupy Wall Street. The community, on its own, became more right wing without overtly advertising itself as such. Over time however it's clear that /pol/ is a far right platform and there was no need for it to splinter off from everything. The lack of robust right wing communities online has more to do with community building rather than self-censorship. A rightwing community has to be exclusionary from the start, and it's hard to bootstrap a community that must ostracize a portion early members.
It's my view, that globally in the western world, that conservatism is actually just a very loud minority position. The loudest conservative folks tend to act the most anti-social and ultimately tend to get ostracized. This ostracism as a result of their anti-social behavior leads to some persecution complex that they are being pushed out when in reality they just hold a minority position. The "no racism" rules are required because when said person gets banned for calling someone a n*gger who was just posting an image of a birdhouse, they tend to be the most pedantic about rules. Most normal people just don't want to deal with that.
> Over time however it's clear that /pol/ is a far right platform
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Is it possible to create a free speech reddit alternative that doesn't immediately turn into a right wing extremist site? My mind immediately turns to the Paradox of Tolerance, and I think the answer is no.
Probably not, because here's the thing: Reddit isn't all that restricted.
Reddit still has swear words, porn, angry arguments about politics and religion on any subject, people arguing that most any social norm should be done away with... now you'll have to find the right subreddit for that, but that's about the only problem.
You have to dig quite deep to bump into a subject that you won't find any outlet for. Even in the cases where a subreddit got banned, you can almost always go and express the same opinion in r/changemyview and not be kicked off the site.
This means that there's about 3 reasons to ever seek out an alternative:
1. You have an issue with the management. Eg, you object to how the company works and don't want to give them money/traffic.
2. You have a purely philosophical disagreement with how the site is run, even if it doesn't impact you personally. You're offended the code isn't Open Source, or that moderation exists, or that people aren't able to hate on fat people, even though your personal usage of the site is just posting cat pictures and not impacted.
3. Your interest is one of the banned subreddits and you're a persona non grata on Reddit.
Of the three, the third is by far the most likely, and they're going to swamp out any influence the first two might have easily.
Reddit still has swear words, porn, angry arguments about politics and religion on any subject, people arguing that most any social norm should be done away with... now you'll have to find the right subreddit for that, but that's about the only problem.
You have to dig quite deep to bump into a subject that you won't find any outlet for. Even in the cases where a subreddit got banned, you can almost always go and express the same opinion in r/changemyview and not be kicked off the site.
This means that there's about 3 reasons to ever seek out an alternative:
1. You have an issue with the management. Eg, you object to how the company works and don't want to give them money/traffic.
2. You have a purely philosophical disagreement with how the site is run, even if it doesn't impact you personally. You're offended the code isn't Open Source, or that moderation exists, or that people aren't able to hate on fat people, even though your personal usage of the site is just posting cat pictures and not impacted.
3. Your interest is one of the banned subreddits and you're a persona non grata on Reddit.
Of the three, the third is by far the most likely, and they're going to swamp out any influence the first two might have easily.
What’s the incentive for users to use it?
You’re offering a comparable product except with no real existing user base and a higher friction to gain new users for your community.
There’s some marginal audience in people interested in the principle of the thing, but the bulk of your users are going to be users that can’t be serviced by the main players.
If your only offering is “X, but we won’t ban you” then you’re going to collect the dregs of the internet.
There’s a bit of a feedback loop here as well in that many of the existing services are banning users and communities because they’re negatively impacting advertisers and the rest of the community. So when your service is overrun with the undesirables in short order, the rest of the communities are going to be negatively incentivized to migrate and you’re going to find it impossible to find any real financial support or backing.
So no, I don’t think “X, but free speech” will ever turn into anything but a cesspool. You need an offering that will attract desirable users as fast or faster than the undesirables that have been kicked out of anywhere else can sign up and that’s going to take some sort of additional value.
You’re offering a comparable product except with no real existing user base and a higher friction to gain new users for your community.
There’s some marginal audience in people interested in the principle of the thing, but the bulk of your users are going to be users that can’t be serviced by the main players.
If your only offering is “X, but we won’t ban you” then you’re going to collect the dregs of the internet.
There’s a bit of a feedback loop here as well in that many of the existing services are banning users and communities because they’re negatively impacting advertisers and the rest of the community. So when your service is overrun with the undesirables in short order, the rest of the communities are going to be negatively incentivized to migrate and you’re going to find it impossible to find any real financial support or backing.
So no, I don’t think “X, but free speech” will ever turn into anything but a cesspool. You need an offering that will attract desirable users as fast or faster than the undesirables that have been kicked out of anywhere else can sign up and that’s going to take some sort of additional value.
> If your only offering is “X, but we won’t ban you” then you’re going to collect the dregs of the internet.
Exactly. They’re the only people you have a value proposition for. Everyone else will just use X.
Exactly. They’re the only people you have a value proposition for. Everyone else will just use X.
You either approach it from the social perspective, or the utilitarian perspective. From the social perspective, the goal is building a community. To build a community, people need to be held accountable for antisocial behavior. The technology is secondary.
Most of the times leftist communities split off from mainstream platforms, it is because the platforms either enable rampant antisocial behavior, limit the community's autonomy in deciding how to deal with it, or its just plain censorship.
The libertarians see it as a utilitarian problem. Banning any content or behavior is beyond the pale, and they try to build out their technology to ensure this "marketplace of ideas" prevails. They consider themselves rugged individualists, so the goal of building a community is an afterthought.
Most of the times leftist communities split off from mainstream platforms, it is because the platforms either enable rampant antisocial behavior, limit the community's autonomy in deciding how to deal with it, or its just plain censorship.
The libertarians see it as a utilitarian problem. Banning any content or behavior is beyond the pale, and they try to build out their technology to ensure this "marketplace of ideas" prevails. They consider themselves rugged individualists, so the goal of building a community is an afterthought.
I wonder if there are any actual free speech services out there: Would any of them tolerate being swamped (as in 90%+ of the content) with insults hurled at their owners and operators?
My guess would be that there's already a limit to their tolerance. And from there, it's really a matter of seeing what kind of content they _do_ tolerate.
A site full of extreme* right wing stuff: That site is an extreme right wing site. If it is indeed "free speech" (which isn't demonstrated yet), that's merely coincidental, but it's not its defining property.
* To adopt hunterb123's preferred phrasing, because for them extremism apparently only begins when people start to draft assassination plans, not just daydreaming about it. I don't care about that particular semantic game, so I'll be as compatible as possible on this thread.
My guess would be that there's already a limit to their tolerance. And from there, it's really a matter of seeing what kind of content they _do_ tolerate.
A site full of extreme* right wing stuff: That site is an extreme right wing site. If it is indeed "free speech" (which isn't demonstrated yet), that's merely coincidental, but it's not its defining property.
* To adopt hunterb123's preferred phrasing, because for them extremism apparently only begins when people start to draft assassination plans, not just daydreaming about it. I don't care about that particular semantic game, so I'll be as compatible as possible on this thread.
Yes, that's lemmy.ml
I'm a fan of lemmy, but that's patently untrue. The main instance has a very strong anti-capitalist and anti-discrimination lean inherited from its devs.
Even lemmy as software was not in favour of free-speach for the period they had that famous(ish) forbidden words filter in the default build.
Even lemmy as software was not in favour of free-speach for the period they had that famous(ish) forbidden words filter in the default build.
If left wing voices were equally banned from the mainstream sites then there would be balance on the alternatives.
I think the key is to avoid going full free speech. What you want to create is a more permissive community that's still under someone's thumb to a degree. It's difficult to start a community under just a slight change in priniples like that, though, because the lion's share of the people in the old community are fine with the status quo.
...So in addition to being more permissive, it seems that you have to have a better product, generally.
From SSC:
> ..if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong committment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
...So in addition to being more permissive, it seems that you have to have a better product, generally.
From SSC:
> ..if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong committment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
What do you mean by "free speech?" "Unmoderated?" "Uncensored?" "Speech not limited by the government?"
In the US "hate speech" is legally protected as free speech (although hate speech has no concrete definition).
In the US "hate speech" is legally protected as free speech (although hate speech has no concrete definition).
While these "free speech" Reddit alternatives end up taking a far-right tone, what's funny is how all discussions they host have to be approached from that angle.
So you can't just talk about your favorite TV show. You have to first make a nod to how it features a Jewish conspiracy to push black-white interracial relationships. Only then can you go on to discuss the actual episode.
So you can't just talk about your favorite TV show. You have to first make a nod to how it features a Jewish conspiracy to push black-white interracial relationships. Only then can you go on to discuss the actual episode.
The comment that got flagged for trying to reverse this missed its point, but I thought it had one.
My reply-too-late:
While that is a little hyperbolic, there's definitely a "kid gloves" approach you have to take in a lot of online discussions.
E.g. there was an article on burnout that popped up on HN[0] recently where the author made sure to apologize for being a "privileged white chick" early on. You can't just talk about your problem with burnout and how you handled it, you have to virtue signal about issues that might not even be related first.
I've seen discussions on Twitter get swamped with "what are you doing in our conversation?" replies that drew the line on racial boundaries, when the issues at hand weren't even exclusive to race.
0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28665065
My reply-too-late:
While that is a little hyperbolic, there's definitely a "kid gloves" approach you have to take in a lot of online discussions.
E.g. there was an article on burnout that popped up on HN[0] recently where the author made sure to apologize for being a "privileged white chick" early on. You can't just talk about your problem with burnout and how you handled it, you have to virtue signal about issues that might not even be related first.
I've seen discussions on Twitter get swamped with "what are you doing in our conversation?" replies that drew the line on racial boundaries, when the issues at hand weren't even exclusive to race.
0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28665065
This happens, but for the example of talking about a TV show, setting your perspective is interesting context. I don't know why it would be described as "kid gloves," though, any more than someone prefacing their comments on industry regulation with the company they work for.
What the OP is describing is more like that the real subject of the board is white male nativism, and in order to talk about any other subject on what is supposed to be a general venue you have to somehow connect it back to the group's tribal concerns. It could almost be a challenge: how would you do it with ice cream? Maybe lead in with a dig at Ben & Jerry's. How would you do it with a new iPhone release? I have no idea.
What the OP is describing is more like that the real subject of the board is white male nativism, and in order to talk about any other subject on what is supposed to be a general venue you have to somehow connect it back to the group's tribal concerns. It could almost be a challenge: how would you do it with ice cream? Maybe lead in with a dig at Ben & Jerry's. How would you do it with a new iPhone release? I have no idea.
> you have to virtue signal about issues
Acknowledging your privilege is not categorically virtue signalling. One can think there's not value is acknowledging privilege (or that it might not exist), but let's not pretend it's impossible (or unlikely) that another does.
Acknowledging your privilege is not categorically virtue signalling. One can think there's not value is acknowledging privilege (or that it might not exist), but let's not pretend it's impossible (or unlikely) that another does.
Are you saying that it’s not categorically virtue signaling because someone can find value in that? Doesn’t sound logical to me. If the detail doesn’t contribute to the discussion but is meant to appease a specific group - that’s definitely closer to virtue signaling than to a genuine expression.
Again, I think the problem here is that you might not find that privilege acknowledgement contributes to the discussion, but there are plenty of people who acknowledge their privilege in the belief that it is contributing to the discussion.
I think it's very telling that folk think that writing "I'm saying this from a position of privilege" invariably is done with a proverbial gun to their head, hoping to evade a public flogging if they fail to do so.
People, myself included, genuinely see disclosing your position of privilege in the same way someone from Company X might say "Disclosure: I work at Company X" when commenting on a post about Company X. Now, it might seem that acknowledging ones privilege is shoe-horned into every conversation, but I challenge you to think about how privilege touches so much of our lives.
Anyways, all I'm saying is you don't have to "find value" in folks acknowledging privilege. You just need to be able to imagine a world in which they do.
I think it's very telling that folk think that writing "I'm saying this from a position of privilege" invariably is done with a proverbial gun to their head, hoping to evade a public flogging if they fail to do so.
People, myself included, genuinely see disclosing your position of privilege in the same way someone from Company X might say "Disclosure: I work at Company X" when commenting on a post about Company X. Now, it might seem that acknowledging ones privilege is shoe-horned into every conversation, but I challenge you to think about how privilege touches so much of our lives.
Anyways, all I'm saying is you don't have to "find value" in folks acknowledging privilege. You just need to be able to imagine a world in which they do.
I think you've misinterpreted them. The discussion is about the 'intention' of somebody mentioning privilidge, not the social merit of the act itself.
If one mentions it in a genuine way that is contextual to the discussion, then it is entirely appropriate. But if it is blithely and thoughtlessly tacked on to a preceding statement (which, let's face it, happens), then it gradually becomes a platitude and empties the acknowledgement of any charge or primacy when others are mentioning their privilige in a considered and good faith way.
If one mentions it in a genuine way that is contextual to the discussion, then it is entirely appropriate. But if it is blithely and thoughtlessly tacked on to a preceding statement (which, let's face it, happens), then it gradually becomes a platitude and empties the acknowledgement of any charge or primacy when others are mentioning their privilige in a considered and good faith way.
Providing context like that seems alien to me. In the same way as specifying that I am a white cis straight male 98% Northern European and 2% Central European, etc, etc.
Almost everyone is privileged in some way. I, personally, don't need to know whether someone is privileged to evaluate and understand their opinion. But on the other hand I agree with you that some people do in fact want to see this context attached to every post.
Almost everyone is privileged in some way. I, personally, don't need to know whether someone is privileged to evaluate and understand their opinion. But on the other hand I agree with you that some people do in fact want to see this context attached to every post.
Hard to read this comment and not see it as putting an equivalence between these two points. How are anti-Semitic conspiracies regarding miscegenation comparable to annoying virtue signaling by white people?
The comment doesn't regard sort of right-leaning conservatism, these websites cater to the far right, anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, racism, etc. Not the ambiguous, "having an afro is cultural appropriation" sort of racism (or what far left/idpol people consider racism may be), literally people calling for ethnostates and even genocide of groups of people. That's the problem and part of why these sites die, because they get populated by extremists who get kicked off of the larger, corporate platforms.
That's the problem. Nothing to do with "sensitivity online" or whatever, unless sensitivity includes being bothered by fringe ideologies that most of the population don't accept.
The comment doesn't regard sort of right-leaning conservatism, these websites cater to the far right, anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, racism, etc. Not the ambiguous, "having an afro is cultural appropriation" sort of racism (or what far left/idpol people consider racism may be), literally people calling for ethnostates and even genocide of groups of people. That's the problem and part of why these sites die, because they get populated by extremists who get kicked off of the larger, corporate platforms.
That's the problem. Nothing to do with "sensitivity online" or whatever, unless sensitivity includes being bothered by fringe ideologies that most of the population don't accept.
you had to do that on reddit every time you discussed trump.
"I loathe that racist, I didn't vote for him, but I thought it was funny that he said... blah blah"
conforming to groupthink and avoiding judgement by the ingroup is a major problem across the "free world". regardless of political leanings.
"I loathe that racist, I didn't vote for him, but I thought it was funny that he said... blah blah"
conforming to groupthink and avoiding judgement by the ingroup is a major problem across the "free world". regardless of political leanings.
Reminds me now of 'I'm double-vaxed, but ..." when redditors criticize any aspect of the divisive issues around the pandemic.
Again, why are people equating weak virtue signaling about milquetoast democratic leanings with singaling about *Anti-semitic conspiracy* mongering? I think the issue isn't about signaling or "when in rome" sort of fitting in, it's that to signal you are part of a the community you have to appear super fringe.
Comparing is not equating. The only thing being compared is the “when in Rome” aspect.
My point is people are missing the point...again, clearly stating it again, the issue isn't the signaling, it's what must be signaled.
You don't believe, that perhaps people are not missing the point at all, but instead your political bias' are showing?
That you agree with political bent of one type of signalling...
That you agree with political bent of one type of signalling...
I don't agree that Jews are trying to make black people marry white people. Is that what you're referring to? I'm certainly not for white people "checking their privilege" either because as I said it's annoying.
Why are you attacking me?
Why are you attacking me?
hunterb123(1)
[deleted]
They're akin to when you're a kid with friends and one of you starts cussing, the rest don't react negatively, and then you just f-bombing all the things. Some people don't want to be adults or approach life that way, they just want the veneer of adulthood.
jikbd(3)
Anyone have a mirror?
Folks, please use your words. Some of us are just trying to make it through Friday without having to login and use show-dead to see both sides of a discussion.
I've sometimes thought that downvotes shouldn't count for much when given by someone who doesn't reply. Count them, just not with nearly as much weight as someone who is willing to explain their disagreement. We already have flagging for marking something is inappropriate.
Visually though, it's not comparable. A reply (often long) is visible but requires reading to garner the sentiment. A grayed out comment is immediately recognizable as being "bad" and "disliked," hence why it's more powerful, and why people do it. It also requires much less effort than typing out why you disagree.