Return

Modern vs. legacy social media [META]

1 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-03 02:41
Up until yesterday, I hadn't really visited this site for years. Coming back, it is quite a shock from the modern social media platforms I use on a daily basis.

I don't really enjoy Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. but I pretty much need to use them for networking and work. They are no longer just for fun. Daily life has been turned into PR. You have to do normal things that high-functioning, normal successful people to do, in order to show it off on social media to let future employees know how talented and well-adjusted and cool you are. You have to meet lots of new people on the off chance that one of them can hook you up with a better job. You have to keep your true personality hidden and stick to a facade that seems acceptable and relatively milquetoast and derivative unless you want backlash.

Then I come back here and it seems so foreign to me, even though I was used to it back in the day. Why have things shifted so much? Social media, back before it was called social media (usenet, BBSes, IRC, mailing lists, text boards, forums, etc) was about cool discussions and silliness. Now everything is work, work, work. Well, that and narcissism. There is still some aspect of fun to modern social media but it's seems definitely more professional-oriented and use as a tool for various things as opposed to socialization. Even the less serious platforms like Tumblr are getting increasingly politicized. And the normalization of using your real identity instead of anonymity or even a pseudonym has chilling effects because it makes people not want to express controversial opinions, at least to some degree.

I have grown older and I'm no longer into otaku/nerd culture, but I can't help but feel like a part of me died when I had to abandon more classic text boards and got more into normal modern social media. It's so stifling. Do you ever think there will be backlash against modern mainstream social media platforms or is real identity and extra data mining and professional usage the norm? Are text boards merely an anachronistic niche for a dwindling userbase that will never recover?

What do you like or dislike about modern social media as opposed to SAOVQ-style boards? Do you think modernizing the UX could get more people back on board? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
2 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-03 18:06
What do you like or dislike about modern social media as opposed to SAOVQ-style boards?
karma-like systems (karma, retweets, likes, endorsements etc) encouraging people to post stuff for attention instead of making a post for discussion/fun.
Do you think modernizing the UX could get more people back on board?
You mean turn it into a heap of javascript mess that refuses your connection if you don't have a "modern" browser? No thanks.
3 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-03 18:35
tl;dr
4 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-03 18:51
>>2
Are you saying you don't have a modern browser? Why not?
>>3
Here's a TL;DR version for you: what do you like or dislike about old-style online communities (such as SAoVQ) as opposed to modern social media?
5 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-03 19:58
>>4
A BBS is not optimized for "retention" or "interacting with partner brands". It's not optimized for anything, not even storing and displaying threads (heh). It's a forum that knows its place as a single website in a vast expanse of websites, not a siloed shithole that employs myriad upon myriad of psychological trickery in an attempt to keep you hooked for as long as possible so you see as much advertisement as possible.

There is not much to be improved in any BBS implementation except for largely superficial features. Anonymity is an integral part of text boards and imageboards specifically, which may play a part in that.
6 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-04 08:46
I think >>2 is talking about how chrome is the new IE6 because webshit techbros only test their sites on one browser.
7 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-04 16:06
>>4
Are you saying you don't have a modern browser?
It's modern but not one of the recognized big ones. Something like Aurora would fall in the same category.
Why not?
Why should I have a "modern" browser?
8 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-04 18:23
>>7
Isn't Aurora just a version of Firefox anyway?
9 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-05 08:29
>>7
Security always moves forwards. Browsers need to keep up-to-date so you don't get boned.
10 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-05 13:04
>>8
Sure but some websites will restrict what a person can access if they try to visit with a browser that the webmaster doesn't consider to be modern and even if it is a modern browser they will try to force you to update to the newest version. Of course all they have access to is the useragent, which can be spoofed. However your Grandpa who's still using IE (or maybe he's updated to Edge?) probably doesn't even know what a useragent is and would be forced to switch browsers/update.

The kind of system outlined above restricts browsers to only a few brand browsers for the users who don't have the right information. You can't ever expect every webmaster to know when a new brwoser pops up and they certainly won't take the time to evaluate any new brand browsers unless a large group of people start using them.

I guess a similar thing would be using newer protocols/gimickey shit that are less efficient just because they are new; older browsers may not support the new stuff and eventually the user would have to make a decision between getting a modern browser or to go without some services/websites.
11 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-05 13:09
>>9
Okay, but what if I don't want to bother updating? In the past few years I've noticed that updates have some consequences that I don't want to deal with. Such as terrible UI design, removal of important features and in some cases extra telemetry services.
12 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-05 17:32
>>9
Security doesn't always move foreword, new security holes are added in at a disproportionate rate to which old ones are patched.
Links has a few security holes that are known, but proportional to the size of its codebase it's nothing to worry about if you use it right, where Firefox has a codebase so large there is no way of knowing how many there are, a good estimate based on GNU benchmarks is one security bug for every 40000 lines of code.
13 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-07 20:23
>>11
Then you get boned. I am not aware of any LTS releases maintained by browser vendors. Sorry.

>>12
"If you use it right"? If Links is vulnerable to XSS, then there is no using it right. (As an example; I'm not saying it is.) Codebase is not as valuable a metric as install base. If your out-of-date browser uses, say, OpenSSH, then you will get boned, regardless of the size of the codebase.
14 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-07 20:41
>>10
"Grandpa" should rightly be forced to use the latest version of their browser. Only if you are well-informed enough on the risks should you be able to keep using an outdated version.

Luckily for you, "Best Practices™" (always read: current practices) on browser identification have rightly made the shift from UA parsing to feature detection, so your concerns should not be an issue on maintained websites. Might I say, though, that new things are not always less efficient. With websockets, for example, all libraries since the beginning have backed the protocol with a "fallback" mode for browsers that do not support it. As for the rest, see >>6.
15 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-07 20:52
For any software that does something over a network (such as a browser, or even an "offline" program that uses the internet to update itself), or something that opens files that can be downloaded from the internet (such as a PDF reader or media player), you need software updates for security reasons. And any program that uses elevated privileges also needs updates, because there can be misuse for privilege escalation.

If a program doesn't meet any of that criteria (doesn't open files, doesn't do any networking, doesn't use extra privileges), then you might not need updates. But how many programs are like that?

In macOS, you can use Homebrew. On GNU/Linux distros, you can use whatever package manager comes with the distro. On Windows, you can use Ninite Updater. There are plenty of ways to easily stay up to date.

Unless you're running an ancient clunker from the 90s, there really isn't any reason to stick with old software.

The only possible downside to new updates is instability, like if updates weren't properly tested and they brick a device. But that's not too common, and if you wait a little while before installing a brand new update, or have some sort of testing environment (especially in workplaces rather than home networks), you can see if the updates are stable before installing them on actual workstations.

For "web scale" technology (such as Netflix, Youtube, etc), they often use something called "feature flags" for rolling out updates. Rather than doing extensive testing for every combination of hardware and OS and browsers, they just do limited testing, then only roll it out to a small group of people, and if those people encounter issues with the new version, they fix it before releasing it to a larger group. And they do this gradually until everyone has the new version.

The first people to install brand new updates are basically beta testers or guinea pigs. But the last people to install software updates get pwned. Don't be an early adopter, but don't be super slow either. And update quicker when the patch notes mention security.
16 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-07 20:54
Well, Ninite Updater for home use, but WSUS for enterprise. Or just imaging and network booting.
17 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 13:45
I don't read this thread at all.
18 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 15:12
>>17
Thanks for your meaningful contribution!
19 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 15:35
My name is Dix Boner and can I reading this thread too?
20 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 16:44
>>13
You mean OpenSSL, OpenSSH is Theo's impregnable mountain.
21 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 22:59
The main reason modernizing the "UX" would be bad is because modern "UX" is terrible. That doesnt mean this is perfect, but that I know for a fact anything someone would try to do to "improve" it would make far worse.
Like >>5 more or less said, this is a site. It facilitates presenting topics then discussing them. Its not a javascript program meant to present you a little toy to most efficiently and quickly present you with visible or disguised advertisements, or whatever is necessary to keep you long enough to show you more.
I can think of one example of trying to make something 'new, different, better' in imageboards that I feel actually was an improvement, werchan, an imageboard based on werc. Its dead, so you cant access it properly with firefox now, most of the files are all gone, but you can still see the idea if you go there. /misc/ has a picture on it still.
Also, browser security wouldnt be such an important concern if you didnt try to turn the browser into a fucking operating system.
22 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 23:20
Ways a BBS like this can improve:

Better color scheme: https://color.adobe.com/

Better CSS, perhaps a solid color or simple gradient rather than a tiling background. Also CSS for elements such as buttons (and separate selectors for different style rules for :hover and so on). Different OSes have default styles for buttons, checkboxes, etc. Better fonts, and better backup fonts. You can list multiple fonts in a CSS block, and if the device doesn't have the first font, it will go on to the second or third, and so on.

Making the site less "busy" -- Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 22:59 is a lot of text, why not just exclude a name if you don't put one in? Why not have relative time stamps, which are all the rage nowadays? You know, like "5 hours ago" or "2 years ago" instead of YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM.

There are plenty of cool things you can do with modern HTML and CSS that don't even involve Javascript, if you're really so opposed to it.

Responsive design -- instead of just having everything stretch when the screen is wider, you could make it so that multiple threads are shown side by side (with float:left, float:right, etc) if the width gets past a certain threshold. Nowadays, some people even have 4K displays. The problem with old-school sites is they don't do well on very low or very high resolution screens. It's important for a site to be readable on a smartphone in portrait mode, and also on a modern computer screen, too. Didn't that one other text board have multiple threads being displayed horizontally? I think it was called Post Office, or something? Also, you might want to take user agents into account too, because Android and iOS tend to have higher DPI than macOS, Linux, or Windows devices, so maybe you'd have fewer elements on screen even with higher resolution because it's physically smaller.

In JavaFX, there's something called FlowPane, which puts more things side by side when the window is resized and allows for the items to fit horizontally together rather than being broken up vertically. I'm only a beginner when it comes to web development but I'm sure you could find something similar to that.

If you've been in the same place for so long, it's kind of like a bubble, not just for ideas, but even for technology. You can get accustomed to a board looking a certain way, and then dismiss new or different things simply because it's easier to be change-averse.
23 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 23:23
Hell, maybe I'll make my own CSS for SAoVQ one of these days.
24 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-08 23:31
>>22
if you're really so opposed to it
HTML+CSS expanding to do what would have previously required javascript doesn't make it any better.
Most of what you said wouldnt make anything better and some of it would make it worse. Im most definitely not constrained by familiarity here either, I go to a million different image and text boards that all do it in their own special snowflake way.
Webshits shouldn't be allowed near computers.
25 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-09 01:26
If it doesn't look good in mothra it's not worth using.
26 Name: sage 2017-10-09 08:52
>>22 I hate every single one of those ideas.
27 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-09 10:04
I HAVE READ THIS THREAD AND NOW I MUST FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT

AND

FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT SOME MORE
28 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-09 10:12
that feeling of soreness in your lower back when you've just taken a huge dump
29 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-09 11:02
>>20
Yikes, hello Freud. Well caught

Also please everyone else we are a VIP text board here, not one of those "everyone except me is a total fucking idiot" cancerholes. Pleas use nice words and use words nicely, in lieu of making yourself look like an asshole.
30 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-09 14:34
>>28
Preach it, brotha
31 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-09 15:19
>>29
Good joke.
32 Name: sage 2017-10-10 15:29
>>22
sage
33 Name: (╬ಠ益ಠ) 2017-10-10 18:13
rage
34 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-10 23:16
>>33
Nice dubs!
35 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-12 22:49
Nice George "Dubya" Bush
36 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-14 14:36
>>22
I love VIPPER and the full timestamp but Name: is unnecessary.
37 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-15 00:24
>>22
Have you ever clicked the options button???
38 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-15 17:17
>>37
Why should the user have to manually configure the site to look better when it should just look good by default?
39 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-16 16:02
>>38
"Look good"? Your opinion is subjective, not objective.
Plus pseud0ch is a classic.
40 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-16 16:52
>>39
Technology is changing, gramps. It's not the 90s anymore.
41 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-16 17:00
modernists GTFO
42 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-16 17:19
>>40
It's still '93 tbh
43 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-16 17:53
>>1 must've been one of those people who thought rather than feel
44 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-16 18:18
>>40
People said that during the skeuomorphism fad, too.
45 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-16 23:59
>>38
It's pretty sad that users are no longer supposed to - on their own - configure interfaces to their liking.
46 Name: VIPPER 2017-10-17 02:26
>>38
but /why/?
>>40
1. change is not improvement. Hardware has improved plenty, but much software just uses exponentially more hardware to do the same thing it did before as well or worse, for an example.
2. aesthetic trends aren't technology. They're fashion, trends, fads. Most of what you'd point to as 'good' looking you only think looks good because its 'modern', but if you were to get rid of that idea that whatever is newest is the best and whats older is worse, itd be clear plenty of it looks really awful, as bad as the worst examples of any previous fad. Just as some of it looks good, and most of it is just boring and suitable. I'd personally rank SaoVQ as cute at first but mostly just serviceable, but thats just my opinion.
3.none of these "design" considerations really matter, though. you submit text. you read the text thats on the page. No pointless fluff you pad around that changes it. "user experience" as a fixed idea spoken about with a single term like that is always somewhere between silly and reprehensible with how philisophically backwards it is, but its especially silly here. a meaningful "improvement" on a text board would be it being an imageboard, but thats not what this is going for, is it?

Return
Name:
Leave this field blank: