>>112217
Uhhhh, smartphones weren't present in the third world during the 2000s. I don't even remember my 2012 phone having a browser, everyone used their computers.

>>112217
>>112217
Third worlders are generally good users if they can speak english reasonably, except some flavors of indonesian and the occasional numbawans.

>>111836
>cock.li
Non-professionally hosted email services pretty much have to be invite only because of the way people use them if you do not have to pay for them (which is a good sign, actually), trust me I know, I made a bunch of throwaway cockmails in the past I wish I could remember now. I think disroot and that one german guy are the only ones who don't do this who aren't also activist exclusive.

>>112197
I feel like YouTube is simply too content diverse and with more tools to succeed than any possible competitor could be at the moment. Although I guess we'll see in time if anyone is able to really make a threat, but the initial investment would have to be in the billions.

>>112246
Bilibili International maybe?

>>112246
>but the initial investment would have to be in the billions.

This is what nobody ever thinks about when they're shilling open source alternatives to social media like the one they were trying to with Reddit is how expensive it is to actually host. And the reddit/twitter crowd is actually an easier sell because they're into talking to strangers online. Imagine trying to convince friends and family to switch to https://friendi.ca/ or https://pixelfed.org/

Language and political gating is more a consequence than a decision. Advertisers don't want certain content so they get more aggressive with filters. People don't want to learn English so they go to domestic alternatives.

>>112247
lol
lmao

Here's something strange...
Why does Twitch.tv and youtube streaming exist at the same time but there's no youtube alternative for entertainment

>>112251
discoverability and potential audience

Kissu theatre will now be hosted on Kick

i suppose youtube is the experiment in unprofitable centralization of video content, while others chose to profit by making things like Crunchyroll and whatnot

>>112254
Youtube does make a profit now, mainly because of Google's AdSense, which is why they're cracking down so hard against adblockers at the moment.

>>112251
Because YouTube had the resources to implement streaming, in order to compete with Twitch. The inverse is sadly not possible.

>>112181
I think for non-/pol/ imageboards, userbase rot is more of a threat than KF-style censorship

>>112169
Spam isn't really that hard to deal with; you just need to be vigilant. Kissu handles it fine, and unless something changed when I wasn't looking, it has a staff of less than ten people.

>>112197
Big creators have been bitching about YouTube for over a decade now. That doesn't mean anything.

YouTube's big strength, from both a creator and a consumer standpoint, is its sheer scale. Creators stay on it because that's where the largest audience is, and the audience stays there because of the vast quantity of content on the site and the algorithm's effectiveness at recommending the subset that they like.

Attempting to beat an already successful product at its own game is stupid. Success comes when you fill a niche that isn't being satisfactorily filled. It's why TikTok is doing so well; it offers a different enough product that it can exist in the same space.

>>112275
Kissu has not dealt with dedicated spammers of CP. We're talking autistic NEETs that have nothing to do but spam CP all day, consuming moderator time and reducing morale. I've deal with some such people and it's dragged on into YEARS before I gave in and just closed the community. Targeted abuse is absolutely still a problem, anyone saying otherwise has never actually dealt with it before.

>>112277
It's actually not an insane task, but as I said >>112180 there's just no incentive to do it.
The academic and financial value of me tackling the task just isn't there as yet.
But the solutions aren't exactly risk free either because you have to have your automated systems interact with CP.

I value the task at about 1000USD in development and I'd put open sourcing it at 2000USD. Would involve setting up an automatic and bot system to scan URLs and implementing various CNN for text reading over images. Along with some systems for adding a filtering mechanism on top of an imageboard engine which withholds certain posts for review if they have link shorteners in the text or image of posts. Effectively an addition on top of the previous features. Probably 500USD

Kissu already has the above in a limited feature and it does have an effect because CP spammers across the imageboard sphere are reacting to the countermeassures I take.

>>112278
Sounds like the perfect thing for me to drop 1500 on.

Yeah, but I'm not sure I could actually do it until next month because I'm both behind on the task I'm contracted on at the moment because of the employer and because I'm lazy when not at my appartment

Also I might be kind of arrogant

>>112280
arabian princess kaguya

>>112278
This is the wrong direction to take. You will always be in an arms race with the spammers, and history has shown spammers will always win. The correct way to beat it is to increase the cost of spamming, not increase the efficiency of dealing with it. For example, users deposit $5 in crypto (or whatever) and if they get banned for CP the money is confiscated by the admin. This turns their weapon into an income stream.

>>112285
With that proposed system you'd need to consider user experience as well
There is a certain level of spam users are willing to tolerate and how much value do they place on that level? I'd doubt most users, even non 4chan users, would value spam protection so much that they'd be willing to deposit $5 in crypto to a site before posting. The monetary cost may be low but the cost of the other thing is probably high in the user's mind. Acquiring the right crypto or crypto at all if the user doesn't have any, processing the payment or more likely being comfortable with letting whatever payment processor the site chooses processes it and then of course having a paper trail to the site. There's also the validation of your purchase with the site, do i now have to make an account to verify payment? If it's a token system, do i lose my deposit and have to buy again if i lose the token? These are not negligible costs if the users we are talking about are imageboard users. This system would really only stifle future growth on an imageboard or may make it dead in the water. The only user group I can see this working with is those in the crypto space, which isn't small but it's also probably not a viable model for the general imageboard ecosystem.

None of this is to discredit your view that increasing costs to spammers is a better way to fight them but just to say that the given solution of crypto deposits probably won't work for the general imageboard.

>>112285
my pov is that we are in the stage of technology where, just as it is equally easy to break captchas through an AI bruteforce, it's equally possibly to create automated systems that make use of the same toolkits.

>>112285
>history has shown spammers will always win
Ikemen will always win

>>112277
Did you try chmod -r on all unreviewed images until they go away?

>>112286
When the spam is child porn, yes they want the spam to be at 0 because no one wants to unwittingly download and view CP (unless they are into that).
> do i now have to make an account to verify payment?
You can do it with a smart contract where the account is just the Ethereum wallet. I have already created a PoC for this.
>This system would really only stifle future growth on an imageboard or may make it dead in the water.
Yes, you're right here. People have become way to coddled with getting everything for free and now we are in captcha hell to pay for our sins. When things get so bad (AI is gonna make it WAY worse) that this becomes the only way, users will move.

Something Awful had a similar "pay to post" model way back when they started, and it turns out that was smart if for the wrong reasons. A deposit system would avoid the "payment" part, since you can get the deposit back when you don't want to use the site anymore.

>>111830

I think it will mostly die, but not entirely. If you've been around textboards and imageboards since their beginnings, you'd know just how much they've fallen off in recent years. The golden era for these communities was 2005 to 2010, after which they began to suffer from a lot of problems such as popularity, new traffic, a disruption of the established culture and then an entire transformation of the place.

But slowly, other platforms including social media (Facebook, Twitter) and discussion sites like Reddit became really big and the novelty of imageboards wore off for many of the people who flooded in after they became mainstream (think of the days when they'd mention 4chan on FOX or CNN...ugh) to the general public.

Then yeah the whole Web 2.0 as a sort of zeitgeist of internet usage and interaction made it so much easier and fluid feeling for people to scroll through a thing like Twitter. Design and accessibility of websites and services got real easy so imageboards began to also feel archaic to many.

It's why that although a place like 4chan, 7chan, 4-ch, SAoVQ and thousands of other obscure boards still exist out there, many more have sadly died off by now. Every so often I will go down rabbit holes and try to go to old boards I remember from way back, just to see that they've died. Because even the dedicated users like I assume we could be considered, begin to drift away.

They'll still exist but I imagine they'll go more unknown and only used by certain groups. Also I don't think Web 2.0 has died at all. It's just that so much of the internet and the way we use it have become SO CORPORATIZED! It sucks. So sure a site like Twitter and Facebook may seem like they're dying but it's because they keep ruining their own products, but I don't think there is a Web 3.0 yet to take its place. It's just going to all feel same-y for many more years to come, with only a tiny few places like this standing out amongst the majority of content out there.

I think the idea of a paywalled community is very interesting and definitely worth pursuing; I personally have considered making my own small-scale social media platform funded that way so I can keep the lights on without relying on advertisements.

But putting up a paywall fundamentally changes the way your community functions, and doing it because you want to prevent spam feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

>>112285
The obvious counterargument is that plenty of communities exist that handle spam perfectly fine. I'm not saying that it's easy to deal with per-say (and it's gotten harder over the years), but it's not as impossible to deal with as you seem to think it is.

>>112300
You're coddled.

>>112308
I don't think you got what OP was saying. Web 2.0 means websites that let users post their own content, which includes imageboards and forums, as well as the big social media platforms. OP's talking about the transition from websites to apps.

>>112310
Only if government regulations came down so hard that anyone other then the diehards could make an imageboard.

>>112310
>The obvious counterargument is that plenty of communities exist that handle spam perfectly fine
You are unaware then that spam is weaponized to destroy communities by people who would like to see them gone. No one is talking about boner pills, this is weaponized CP that people use to get webhosts to pull sites that people don't like, like kiwifarms or 4chan. It's typically used when all other forms of deplatforming are exhausted.

Just because "some" communities don't have a spam problem now doesn't mean it can't be used in the future to destroy them whenever some sperg feels they have wronged him. We need to build resilience, not just deal with the problems of today.

The cp spam is because they make money off of it.

>>112317
the threat they're talking about is not those random shotgun blasts, it's about a dude with a minigun shooting at you for twenty hours straight

unless you're talking about people who spam a site with CP in a similar way as wojacks... in which case we resolved that issue probably a year or two ywo ago

yeah we have systems in place to deal with that.

i know, just wanted to avoid a misunderstanding

Dealing with ellegal spam reminds me of skibidi toilet episodes

>>112312
>You are unaware...
I'm not, I just didn't entirely get that that's what you were referring to. It's my bad for reading thru this thread on the phone (I'm on desktop now btw).

This sort of thing is worth considering, but not to the point where you shape your whole community around it. The vast majority of small-scale web communities aren't going to be targeted by this sort of thing. Most of the sites these sorts of spammers go for are places like KF: communities that are big enough that the actions of their users extend past the site itself.

Also, it's worth noting that, despite everyone's best efforts, KF is still around, and it (not entirely unreasonably, considering what they do) has a giant target painted on its back.

>>112326
>what they do
They do nothing themselves. Its just gossip and archiving, actually interacting is heavily discouraged and shamed

>>112328
That's what they all say.

>>112330
>ossip
open source gossip

osseous gossipping

'ossip and 'archiving

Surely there is something more interesting to talk about than illegal content and gossipers.

>>112308
Sometimes I wonder if it's the software holding imageboards back. The way stuff works now is aimed at preventing people from searching or thinking about things actively. Instead, the content is brought to them. A text/imageboard equivalent would be something like a random/related thread opening in your browser after you scroll to the bottom of a thread. You don't think of entering it, it's automatically displayed on your screen or at best there's a button in the middle that says "LOOK AT THIS". A system designed to keep you engaged for as long as possible.
It sounds really terrible, but that's what you have to compete against.

>>112328
That's one way to put it...

>>112334
Randomly selected infinite scroll?

>>112334
most content is objectively bad though.