Reputation has some value. If the author tries and make a new product, perhaps some people will be more inclined to try it with the belief that they won't be left out to dry if it fails like most other products.
People also seem to forget that your reputation inside of your own head matters for a lot of people. People have different ways to frame or reframe past failures, and to get past them.
Besides, begrudging people time spent on community sounds like something your last shitty manager would do. Can’t tell if GP is shitty manager material or has Stockholm Syndrome from them. Odds favor the latter.
There is a comedy (romcom?) where a lawyer is explaining some terrible thing to the main characters and the woman looks at him in disgust and says, “how do you sleep at night?” The antagonist takes the question literally, and cheerfully answers her with, “white noise machine!”
> If those communities and apps already respect their users, then do they need this author? What difference would they make?
What? Does software development just go away if you respect your users? Do people not want 3rd-party Mastodon or Matrix clients just because the orgs aren't running advertisements on their servers? Is the idea that I install Linux and everything just magically works because Linus isn't trying to sell me something?
Building services that respect users is still work. It's still a thing that people can help with and support, either directly or through 3rd-party tooling and extensions.
This is silly, of course there is. There's observably a larger market for 3rd-party Mastodon and Matrix clients than there is for a Nebula filtering tool.
Also, are you seriously going to argue this? Are you seriously going to double down on the idea that services that respect their users don't need development help or tooling support or developer ecosystems?
Have you heard of Blender? This is just straight-up silly, I don't know what else to say about it. FOSS projects and platforms have the same exact support and community needs as any proprietary service does.
> Also, are you seriously going to argue this? Are you seriously going to double down on the idea that services that respect their users don't need development help or tooling support or developer ecosystems?
No, I'm doubling down on challenging the author to be more audacious:
a) being honest with oneself and learning from failure (they call their project a "big success")
b) be more ambitious - building or contributing to yet another 3rd party Mastodon or Matrix client (both?) is just more noise in a crowded space going after a relatively small audience.
> No, I'm doubling down on challenging the author to be more audacious:
You've edited your comment since it was originally posted, but as a reminder, this is what I was responding to:
> If those communities and apps already respect their users, then do they need this author? What difference would they make?
Which is a pointedly ridiculous thing to say. No, you were not calling on the author to be more ambitious, this is silly.
---
> b) be more ambitious - building or contributing to yet another 3rd party Mastodon or Matrix client (both?) is just more noise in a crowded space going after a relatively small audience.
Donation of time and effort to make platforms more attractive that you are ethically aligned with is not just "noise in a crowded space".
As if FOSS tooling was a crowded space!! These projects are desperate for volunteers, and lack of developer time and resources is one of the biggest handicaps that these projects often face. It is unquestionably valuable for people to volunteer effort in this direction.
It might not be flashy, it might not give you a giant userbase. But some people have different metrics of success than that, and high-impact activities often aren't flashy. You bring up building new projects as an alternative to donating to existing efforts. Yeah, that sounds very attractive and flashy, but there are a half-dozen FOSS platform alternatives to every proprietary service and we don't actually need more of them. What we need is for people to focus on a couple that already exist and make them as good as possible. It's less sexy, but it matters more.
> As if FOSS tooling was a crowded space!! These projects are desperate for volunteers, and lack of developer time and resources is one of the biggest handicaps that these projects often face
thinking about eg the recent xz vuln, isn't this somewhat indicative of a licensing failure on the part of FOSS licenses? the point of licensing is to ensure the author is properly compensated for his work, and if the work is used by billion dollar companies while authors scrape by and beg for donations, it seems to me that the license isn't doing its job. the license should capture some value and give it to the author.
it's completely absurd that professional tooling is begging for volunteers. you don't see that in any other field.
That could be a longer conversation, but I think there's a subset of community-run projects that would be desperate for volunteers even if they were proprietary. In general most non-exploitative volunteer spaces are clamoring for volunteers even outside of software. Your local library is probably clamoring for volunteers (depending on the location). If you're in a rural area your school is probably clamoring for substitute teachers. And on and on.
I have opinions about the movement away from FOSS to source available licenses, but I think independent of all of that, smaller projects that fulfill important niches but that are not easily monetizable generally need help, and I don't think that would change if software licenses changed. Some projects could probably get better funding, but many would be in the same position.
I think in general there is more productive stuff to do in the world than there are people available to do it -- and I don't just mean in software, I mean everywhere. The world is held together by duck tape because a surprising small proportion of people volunteer to duck tape it together, and any effort that anyone expands towards helping them and making the world better instead of exclusively chasing whatever the next sexy high-visibility project is -- I think that's important, impactful work.
What does "reasonably sized market" mean in this context, and what does it imply about projects that lack them?
More specifically, why does there being some people that want those things mean something other than some people want those things? It almost sounds like you're trying to have a different conversation.
> What does "reasonably sized market" mean in this context, and what does it imply about projects that lack them?
Projects that lack a reasonably sized market are fine, but their impact will be confined. It is a tradeoff you choose to make.
> More specifically, why does there being some people that want those things mean something other than some people want those things? It almost sounds like you're trying to have a different conversation.
Because if you want to have an impact, you should choose where and how to spend your time. You should pour a different amount of effort and resources into doing something for 1 person vs. 800 people vs. 1,000,000.
Video calls are a big missing feature, that's one of the only reasons I have an alternative installed alongside it. From what I've heard, the devs have said that the reason why native audio/video calls aren't planned literally just comes down to complexity and the maintenance cost.
Matrix has been focusing more recently on trying to break some core functionality out into modules that can be imported -- encryption being the biggest example of this. Movement in that direction for video/audio would be a big deal. It's not just that Fluffychat needs help getting video working -- that would only leave them with another chunk of code to maintain. Ideally, they should be able to import a common library for this, but as far as I know, none exists that's usable for their needs.
Matrix video calls are a good example of this kind of ecosystem need in general -- Element had video calls before the spec actually supported video... because it used a Jitsi plugin. And that 3rd-party offering bought time for the spec authors to come up with more robust native support.
The problem is that 3rd-party clients offering the same support is still wildly complicated. There's a lot of room for improvement there.
i am pretty sure most people use third-party mastodon clients, if you're talking about apps. they didn't even have a first-party client until recently.
Charming outlook. I can't imagine that mental model leads to any frustration except it seems when you are compelled to offer your hard earned course correcting unsolicited advice (and without compensation no less). Here's some advice too - if you want to be edgy don't point it at someone actually out in the arena closing off with the same self-respect and craftsmenship they more than likely took into it thinking it was something that needed doing. Honestly your statements remind me of this "Jigar Kumar" character in the xz fiasco [1] which is a perfect case study of the thankless expectations involved with maintaining an open source project that probably also started out of the sheer belief that it was a useful idea that needed doing. It's people like them who built the web and not just to click farm for attention measurements if you can believe that. Without the long tail of value those people still contribute free of charge to the world there would be a lot less product market fit for people like you to chase after.
This comment reminds me of another comment I read some years back on this site. There was discussion about newsletters/mail advertising and one of the writers of such software that power it chimed in.
All of the "legitimate" mailers have a disclaimer that says it can take up to X number of days before the changes take effect, which normal developers were obviously calling BS on.
The commenter said it wasn't intentionally written to be slow at his company but they deal with massive lists. But then the commenter said his company could probably make it faster or near instantaneous but when a user indicates that they want to unsubscribe from their spam they have gone from a potential source of revenue to being valued at zero. He complained that it made no sense to make the unsubscriber's lives better by immediately unsubscribing them instead of focusing his time on trying to make sure the spam got out to more people.
It was a thoughtful, rational comment that made me want to be a better developer instead of scum that makes the world worse.
I applaud the project author for not being scum.
Edit: andsoitis edited his comment after being downvoted. Here is the original reply I replied to.
"
> I have to applaud taking even "failed" projects serious enough to come up with a reasonable exit plan (unlike some large companies).
That's time the author will never get back that they could have spent on their new mission.
Maybe it only took them 5 minutes, but I doubt it. Even if it was no time, it reveals a mental model that I think will continue to lead to their frustration.
When they say "This project is making the commercial web more bearable, but I'd rather spend my energy on making the non-commercial web more attractive." it is saying they would rather spend time making their 800 users get a soft landing spot for a product that the author has said is futile, than spend their energy on their new mission.
The next sentence I think is reveals more: "I want to support communities and applications that respect their users and value what we have to say." If those communities and apps already respect their users, then do they need this author? What difference would they make?
"
> But then the commenter said his company could probably make it faster or near instantaneous but when a user indicates that they want to unsubscribe from their spam they have gone from a potential source of revenue to being valued at zero. He complained that it made no sense to make the unsubscriber's lives better by immediately unsubscribing them instead of focusing his time on trying to make sure the spam got out to more people.
For an industry (marketing) that is all about "intent", someone who doesn't want the marketing materials and won't buy and thus has a revenue value of zero and is making that intent clear by unsubscribing, it makes no sense to delay and possibly send more spam to them. It reeks of being driven by the wrong metrics, how many marketing emails were sent rather than how effective are the emails at converting to sales and unsubscribe requests should be informing how effective the emails are.
> I applaud the project author for not being scum.
If I were a user of their project, which is free mind you, and they stopped it without a decent shutdown plan because after 2 years they could only get 800 users and they would rather use their life in a different way, I would not think of them as scum. To think someone like that is scum would be pretty toxic in my book.
It seems futile to filter Amazon products by name, but it's interesting that it seems to be able to filter YouTube shorts.
Given that after two years there are only about 30 templates, I'm guessing it's too difficult to actually accomplish something useful given the tools provided. That's not a knock on the creator -- off the top of my head I don't know how I'd provide an easy way to customize/filter/modify web content -- I'm just saying I understand the shutdown given the apparent lack of traction.
Ublock origin's filter syntax is very good but has limitations that make it borderline impossible to filter out some elements and also very brittle. For example, this one is one of 20 lines of filters to get rid of Shorts: `www.youtube.com##ytd-mini-guide-renderer a.yt-simple-endpoint path[d^="M10 14.65v-5.3L15 12l-5 2.65zm7.77-4.33"]:upward(ytd-mini-guide-entry-renderer)`
The frontend code is so abstracted that as soon as it is updated it is probably going to break. With userscripts you can filter these things with more sophisticated functions, but it slows down the interface more than UBO. In google's case that type of frontend abstraction (imo) is not intentionally designed to break interface filtering but it has that effect. For other companies like facebook and amazon they actively make filtering elements harder, because of their anti-adblock strategies, but they are all casting a wide enough net that element filtering is affected too. It's a long game of cat and mouse.
The way YouTube forces shorts on users who likes long form content is really frustrating. uBlock filters are great but doesn’t solve the fundamental issue here. There should be a way to opt out of YouTube shorts.
It's not just the length that's frustrating, it's the near total lack of control. Miss the first few seconds because your sound was off/low? Gotta watch the whole fucking thing to the end and then let it replay because there's no slider or restart/rewind button.
All because either they purposefully wanted to force us to do that (view count boosting I guess, or it's more likely to be remembered?) or some google exec got Shorts barely done enough to show off at a board meeting and say "done, made something that competes against reels!" and then ran off to work on something else to try and boost their stature in the company.
I think the reason is they know they'll lose the market share if they don't force them. Most people know that they are addictive and "bad for you" so many people would not opt in to them. But if they're almost forced, they will succumb to the addiction.
It was a great project but it's kind of pissing in the wind. These things break constantly as new awful features get added. And there's not much you can do with ublock about high-level frontend changes that are the real problem, like google switching to infinite scroll or removing the plus operator. I can understand getting worn down.
I'm sad to learn this projet is shutting down. The maintainer (xvello) contributed a lot to my uBlock dev filter [0]. We tried to reduce the time lost on deceptive and low-quality content for search engine users. Generative ML and aggressive SEO technics hit hard.
I'm looking forward installing this on brave as soon as I get my hands on my pc, my attention span is so low that sometimes when I open up YouTube in incognito, I get overwhelmed. (I often do that to not mess with my actual recommended comment if I know I just need to search a video or two for one offs)
The homepage shows a lot of crap and clickbait thumbnails, and especially thumbnails with people having weird expressions and staring at me makes my brain completely lose context and lose focus for a few seconds, so that I have actually to think again about what I was gonna search, and sometimes I can't even remember it
You’re right and that push for shallow content just frustrates me. I wish at least they took my subscription fee and distributed to the channels and videos I watched.
I have to wonder what the creator has against Mike Boyd? "Nebula: filter out videos by creator... To get the code for a creator, go to their page... For example, Mike Boyd’s page..."
Filtering Nebula in general seems like a low-probability use-case?
Nebula used to not have a discovery feed and just a most recent videos one, so I could see someone wanting to filter out creators who they've watched and decided aren't for them to have a better chance of potentially finding new channels they do want to watch.
EDIT: Also, not sure if you're just joking or not, but I'd bet the author is a Mike Boyd fan. I feel like people tend to use examples of things they like in documentation, and it's just an example.
Same here. I have discovered so many new creators on Nebula I never would have found otherwise^* but there's definitely channels I just never want to see.
* I never watched youtube as a primary source of entertainment like pretty much everyone uses youtube. I just had channel pages bookmarked (invidious instance links usually lol) so I never stumbled upon relevant channels even on the off chance something not terrible was in the recommendations which I always ignored. I got onto nebula because almost all of the very small handful of creators I watched were on it and it was cheap enough to justify the subscription lol
I have a similar issue with some YouTube channels that despite liking their content I cannot subscribe to their channel because they publish dozens of shorts every week. So I just have a memory list of channels I visit every so often to see if they published anything. The shorts practically broke the subscription system for me.
Fair point -- I think Mike Boyd is the "how long will it take me to learn this obscure thing" guy. I can see why that might not be to everyone's taste, but he seems relatively innocuous. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The obvious question to me in a situation like this is: how does Nebula provide preference? And honestly, I get it -- I am a subscriber, and I have a hard time getting a feed of the people I'm interested in, to the extent that I just do it to support the creators, I don't actually use Nebula. I continue to watch Nebula creators on YouTube, which has got to be a bottom-tier result for them.
I hadn't heard of this until now, but it seems (seemed) like a decent idea. From what I can tell it's a UI that lets you configure what you'd like to block on certain sites, and there can be community contributed templates. You get a URL, you then add that URL to your UBO filters. It actually reminds me of nextdns.
I heard of this project on HN sometime last year, I never used their instance but I have been using their YouTube UBO filters and even contributed to fix some after some YouTube updates.
And the UBO filters are fairly easy to maintain which is why I was a little surprised that they are shutting down this project, I understand the instance might be hard to maintain but the filters can very well be maintained I think.
Either way, there seems to be other alternatives that do similar things. I will likely be using those then.
If by UBO you mean uBlock Origin, you can do one better. Use it's eye dropper tool to select elements of a web page to block. I use is it to block Youtube premium nags, comments, side bar of other content, etc.
I am sorry to hear this. I have been a satisfied user since I found out about this project on HN a few months ago. It has kept Amazon and a lot of other garbage out of my search results for starters. I use uBlock Origin extensively but have never been able to learn to write my own filters. letsblock.it handled a lot of that seamlessly. My sincere thanks to the developer for his valiant efforts.
I didn't know about this project and had for a while been thinking of writing something like it. Now maybe I know better. Oh well, thanks for all the fish.
Something along the same line is StopTheMadness (get the new Pro version).
Also on some pages disabling JavaScript makes the experience better (although nowadays most pages just break), but if you don't have a way to easily disable it per-website you could check out my pet project https://noscript.it
Combined it with STM's automatic url-rewrite and you can get automatic per-site noscript even on the iPhone.
Shutting off JS often makes things worse. What I really want is an ultra-aggressive Reader Mode that doesn't get fooled by so many sites. That means it has to know how to extricate the relevant text from a bunch of specific sites. At one point I had a special proxy just to clean up a few sites that I was reading frequently, but it broke. I also fooled around with running a headless Firefox under Selenium to get the text out, but I got bored with that. I might try to get that going again, or might try to figure out how browser plugins work.
I've been toying with the idea of using headless firefox with UBO as a filtering proxy, but nothing has come of it so far.
I'm actually focused more on writing a quality search engine that ranks pages based on the amount of anti-user behavior, dark patterns, etc. a site has. Have a really crappy site with tons of ads, popup modals, and trackers? No clicks for you! So I'm doing something similar to what the author is doing I guess.
What a cool project and much-needed idea! Had I known about it, I'd probably be user #801. It's a shame it's shutting down.
The modern web is exceedingly user-hostile, and browsers are not doing a good job as the User's Agent. Browsers are the ones that should provide users control over what they see, what they use, and what they skip. But, instead of giving the user the choice and respecting the user's preferences, browsers are acting like dumb canvases, allowing web developers to just spew whatever they want at the user. We shouldn't need extensions and third party hacks like this to keep control over what our browser does. And we should not accept browsers that just enable the web developer to do whatever they want.
Rant over. Awesome project, sorry to see it go, wish I had a chance to experiment with it.
> This project is making the commercial web more bearable, but I'd rather spend my energy on making the non-commercial web more attractive. I want to support communities and applications that respect their users and value what we have to say. These websites don't need letsblock.it rules, because they don't shove low-quality content and anti-features down our throats.
Interesting idea - I like the non-commercial web and am inspired by attempts to invigorate it, and yet I also get the feeling that its ship sailed when everyone left for the commercial web. I don't see them (us?) coming back.
>This project is making the commercial web more bearable, but I'd rather spend my energy on making the non-commercial web more attractive.
They don't spell it out explicitly, but I think the author realized that they were effectively acting as an enabler.
The letsblock.it tool encouraged customers to use workarounds so that they could still continue engaging with big tech companies that are so customer-hostile. Instead, the author is choosing to let big tech make their experience worse, and customers have more incentive to seek out non-commercial alternatives.
> They don't spell it out explicitly, but I think the author realized that they were effectively acting as an enabler.
> The letsblock.it tool encouraged customers to use workarounds so that they could still continue engaging with big tech companies that are so customer-hostile.
With only 800 active users, letsblock.it obviously didn't have any measurable effect. To think otherwise is hubris.
People use products from "big tech companies" because they offer something that is useful that others don't offer. In the author's conflation of "big tech" and "commercial", I think they need more clarity in what they really want to accomplish, what their mission is. Being "against" something is a valid goal in life, but then you really have to be very strategic about it. Being "for something" and pouring your energy into making something that people want or need seems more productive. Even then, you want to be strategic because there's an infinite number of things you could go after. Do you diffuse your attention or do you focus? Supporting the "non-commercial web" seems too vague in my opinion.
> Being "against" something is a valid goal in life, but then you really have to be very strategic about it. Being "for something" and pouring your energy into making something that people want or need seems more productive.
From the announcement:
> but I'd rather spend my energy on making the non-commercial web more attractive.
The author pretty explicitly states that they want to shift from an "against something" mentality (against disruptive content in proprietary apps, against the intended user-experience of those apps) to a "for something" mentality (building and supporting non-commercial services).
I genuinely do not see the complaint.
> With only 800 active users, letsblock.it obviously didn't have any measurable effect.
Unless the author was planning on never making a popular project, I don't think this is a good way of evaluating direction or effort. In either case, putting in a huge amount of effort to support 800 active users who might otherwise (at least partially) shift their attention to better services seems reasonable to question. If we take it that there is any value in improving experiences for a small number of people, then there is equal value in making it more pleasant for those people to use Libre services.
And of course that's even before asking about the opportunity cost. If an author can take the same amount of time they were devoting to this and instead build tools that make a Libre/Community service more attractive for 800 people, that's arguably a much higher impact activity on the health and growth of that service than wasting that effort trying to make proprietary platforms palatable.
But again, if your point here is to focus in on a mission, starting with "nothing I build will have any impact on any of this" is just not really helpful at all.
> Supporting the "non-commercial web" seems too vague in my opinion.
A general mission statement/direction is often the first step towards narrowing down product ideas. I think making a decision in a direction (ie, pivoting from doing free UX enhancements for commercial companies towards saying, "I want to benefit services that don't feel exploitative") is a good place to start. Of course over time the author will probably narrow that focus, but this at least lays out a category that they can start looking into.
> > Supporting the "non-commercial web" seems too vague in my opinion.
A general mission statement/direction is often the first step towards narrowing down product ideas. I think making a decision in a direction (ie, pivoting from doing free UX enhancements for commercial companies towards saying, "I want to benefit services that don't feel exploitative") is a good place to start. Of course over time the author will probably narrow that focus, but this at least lays out a category that they can start looking into.
This further emphasizes the lack of clarity, focus, and suboptimal strategy. When I read your assessment of their previous strategy "doing free UX enhancements for commercial companies" while the person is against commerce, I do not walk away with a sense that they have reconciled for themselves what is worth going after and so the non-specific "I want to support communities and applications that respect their users and value what we have to say." I predict will likely also have no registrable impact.
I have more candid feedback for the author and that is to take a more clear look at how they evaluate themselves. They say "launching letsblock.it and keeping it running for over two years is a big success in my book." Instead they should call it what it is - a failure - and learn from it. Failure is fine, failure is great, even. They would be more successful by dreaming bigger and with more focus.
> When I read your assessment of their previous strategy "doing free UX enhancements for commercial companies" while the person is against commerce, I do not walk away with a sense that they have reconciled for themselves what is worth going after [...]
> Instead they should call it what it is - a failure - and learn from it.
I'm going to be really blunt here, it sounds a lot less like your critique is that the author isn't clear about their goals or that the author doesn't know how to evaluate themselves -- and more like your critique is that the author's evaluation of themselves and their goals doesn't match yours.
Running any project with 800 users for 2 years as a hobbyist can be reasonably called a success. This reads a lot like how VC people will come into Mom and Pop shops and say, "this business is a failure, they just have years of loyal customers in a niche, what a disgrace! They obviously haven't thought enough about their product focus."
> That's not success, and certainly not a "big success" which is the author's self-reflection.
Again, the author is not obligated in any way to align themselves to your definition of success. And them disagreeing with your definition of success is not the same thing as them being confused or not having thought enough about what they want. It might just mean they disagree with you.
> I think they set out to make a big impact. That means growth
No, not necessarily. Growth can be a component of impact, but they are not synonymous, and many highly impactful projects never see a lot of attention or direct growth -- they enable other projects to succeed or fix some of the many diverse pain points that subsets of users for those projects have.
800 people might not fix the whole tech ecosystem (it is impossibly broken which so I can see why the author would like to just go work on something else). But if you got 800 people in a room to say thanks, I bet it would feel pretty cool.
(This isn’t intended as a full counter argument against your broader point, which I’m still not really sure either way about, I just wanted to note that sometimes we have small effects and that’s OK. We’re only individuals after all, it wouldn’t make sense to expect every person to change the world in some sense, it would be chaos).
I don’t think you are. You have a very utilitarian set of ideas, where optimization towards some unspecified goal of commercial success is the objective, and everything else is deemed ‘lack of strategy’, or ‘poor’.
> You have a very utilitarian set of ideas, where optimization towards some unspecified goal of commercial success is the objective, and everything else is deemed ‘lack of strategy’, or ‘poor’.
Their strategy was to provide free UX enhancements for commercial companies. When they are against the commercial web!
Success does not have to be commercial. It can be about non-monetary impact. They had 800 users and tells themselves "launching letsblock.it and keeping it running for over two years is a big success in my book". Claiming that outcome as a big success is odd and I don't know that the author is learning from failure. When they can say to themselves "I failed in my mission, let me learn from it," I think they will have a larger chance to grow, be more successful, have bigger impact.
“constructive ideas” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in ignoring your lack of empathy. i am always amazed by the people that provide “constructive ideas”, and then fail to take any “constructive ideas” from others.
you are failing in the same way as the original author by your own metric
Exactly. If the commercial enshittified web bothers you to the point of trying to fix it, at some point you'll realize that it's a quixotic crusade, and that you don't even want to engage with the content offered on these platforms anymore. Why would you? The shittier the platform, the shittier the content.
The future of good online interactions is in small, closed, well-maintained and asynchronous communities.
> Why would you? The shittier the platform, the shittier the content.
Paradoxically that's the way some people find salvation. They have to
hit the bottom. Instead of making their experience of digital abuse
more palatable what they need is more YouTube, more Facebook, more
Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram. Until something inside snaps and their
soul pukes.
I'd totally get it if the author realised they were just prolonging
users' misery. As Nietzsche said; "What is shaky, push it!"
The last line resonates with me as the discord I hang out in is my only source of good recommendations anymore. Almost all of the good stuff I've seen in the past years comes from there. My algorithmic feeds by comparison are all high-viewcount trash for idiots. That onion article from years ago about the lowest common denominator dropping at an alarming rate has only gotten more true over time.
> This project is making the commercial web more bearable, but I'd rather spend my energy on making the non-commercial web more attractive. I want to support communities and applications that respect their users and value what we have to say. These websites don't need letsblock.it rules, because they don't shove low-quality content and anti-features down our throats.
Yeah, perfectly. That's why I suggested it. It sounds like he was super interested in one thing, 2 years passed, and now he isn't interested in that one thing and wants to do something else. Bored. There's nothing wrong with that.
I don't think I would call that bored. It's say this project let them grow enough that they realized that what they really want is something different than what they're working on.
But to me "bored" sounds like a bad thing, so maybe I'm just arguing semantics.
Boredom isn't bad; its often how we become creative and create novel things. Not really the same quality of boredom as what I'm talking about, but this video from Veritasium is still relevant, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKPwKFigF8U
They’re not wrong that generative AI is enshittifying content but ironically they could leverage it to keep up with the template generation letsblockit could benefit from.
Reading this submission and the comments here, I am struck by how much pressure build-up there is now against the ensh*ttified web. Surely something good much come of this, and if it is via the mechanism of creative destruction… so be it. It may not come this year or next, but within 5 years? I could see that happening.
This was a failed idea from the start. Furthermore, the "commercial web" is not so bad.
Sometimes I'm not sure if peoole like this dude truly live in a bubble. I mean, you have to take HN with a grain of salt, opinions here not representative at all and not better than the ones from the general population.
Well ... Bubbles are everywhere ... you may live in one too? So maybe I am.
"not so bad" ... means what? It's bad but I got used to it. For me this is always the beginning of the end ;-)
Well, I've been using (surfing?) the web since the late 90s and sure, some things have become more commercial, there are new walled-gardens, some ads are annoying, cookie banners annoying but really you can do everything you could do back then an 100x more.
Would I want to go back to the so-called golden, idealized age of the web in the late 90s/early 2000s? No.
So, what I'm saying is that it hasn't deteriorated. The only thing that's happening is that HN is an echo chamber.
> It has been running for more than two years now and its official instance currently serves more than 800 active users and hundreds of anonymous visitors every day. We achieved this thanks to dozens of contributors and financial sponsors who I am grateful for.
Failing to find product/market fit is a good time to reflect upon one's assumptions, biases, and perspective. Another piece of unsolicited constructive feedback I would offer the author is that from where I sit, I think they would be more successful if they are motivated and inspired by a more positive and strategic outlook.
I suggest relaxing, lest your comment become funny, because it describes itself better than the mind it is trying to read.
Want an "asshole" version? i.e. the honest version? (note, I'm not the guy you're diagnosing and mind-reading, just want to highlight how absurd your conception of OP is)
That was one of the strangest deprecation announcements I've ever seen, foaming at the mouth, blaming massive external factors (companies...pursuing money? is an odd thing to be surprised by), way overly dramatic lies about ex. Google "content-blocking extensions with MV3 under false security claims and planning to lock down the OS and browser with DRM."
I have no love for Google, but as soon as someone starts saying "MV3 [makes] false security claims", I remember MV3 is just Safari's more private content blocking from years ago.
When I see "planning to lock down the OS and browser with DRM.", I'm like "wait...he can't be describing...", click through, and see he's describing the one-off public announcement of beginning a prototype of a browser API that a user is human (transparent!), that was cancelled, publicly, extremely shortly after, because of reactions like this. (thankfully!)
Much like the constructive version of this comment, I bet they'd be able to keep going if they didn't see their project in such epic terms, given they framed giving up in terms of companies continuing to pursue money and Google.
your points are all fair and valid, and i can see how mine was missed.
i am attempting to say:
the way you give feedback is highly correlated with it landing.
your “mean” feedback is not, it speaks to why and does not just dismiss the author or try to trivialize a number. it provides clear links to issues, not just attacking the intelligence of the poster. you make a series of great points, reinforced by others feelings and examples of real world issues.
this feedback can be turned into something useful, allows reflection, and does not attack the authors entire reason to be here.
the original dude literally says:
1. 800 users is shit
2. your app had no effect
3. you dont even know how to choose a goal
