Reddit remains a guilty pleasure of mine, though I no longer interact with the website in any means other than reading. If they shutter old.reddit.com, or make it any more difficult to use, I guess they'll lose me - but to them, that's probably no loss at all.
Old reddit is the only "discussion forum" experience you could get on web.
In general, reddit has morphed into a version of facebook where picture/video posts are given more priority by the feed recommendation algorithm. True discussions are suppressed and don't get much impressions. A significant portion of the new crowd it attracts has a hybrid persona between the average facebook and instagram/tiktok user.
>Old reddit is the only "discussion forum" experience you could get on web.
Not really. I visit multiple hobby/niche-specific discussion forums daily that are either still running on phpBB, or are setup in a similar style. They're out there, and they've still got a much better experience than anything Web 2.0 and beyond.
There should be a name for the phenomenon in which the discerning minority of an online population flees a rapidly worsening service for newer, better options while the passive stay behind.
> The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has endorsed a commonsense technical interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a law not usually given to such interpretation. Amazon had sued Perplexity AI to try to shut down its Comet browser, claiming the browser’s optional agentic AI “Assistant” that can browse websites like Amazon for comparison shopping purposes, violated the CFAA because Amazon did not “authorize” Perplexity to access Amazon users’ accounts. Rejecting that theory, the Ninth Circuit held that Perplexity was unlikely to be liable because users operate the tool, not Perplexity.
> That’s the right conclusion, as both a legal and technical matter. As we explained to the court in our amicus brief, the CFAA requires unauthorized “access,” and Perplexity itself does not access Amazon’s servers—users of the Comet browser do. The court agreed, noting that EFF’s explanation “articulates the nature of the system most clearly.”
Reddit remains a guilty pleasure of mine, though I no longer interact with the website in any means other than reading. If they shutter old.reddit.com, or make it any more difficult to use, I guess they'll lose me - but to them, that's probably no loss at all.
the last port in the storm is redreader; they threatened that with the API change, but I'm guessing they're definitely going after it too.
Old reddit is the only "discussion forum" experience you could get on web.
In general, reddit has morphed into a version of facebook where picture/video posts are given more priority by the feed recommendation algorithm. True discussions are suppressed and don't get much impressions. A significant portion of the new crowd it attracts has a hybrid persona between the average facebook and instagram/tiktok user.
>Old reddit is the only "discussion forum" experience you could get on web.
Not really. I visit multiple hobby/niche-specific discussion forums daily that are either still running on phpBB, or are setup in a similar style. They're out there, and they've still got a much better experience than anything Web 2.0 and beyond.
There should be a name for the phenomenon in which the discerning minority of an online population flees a rapidly worsening service for newer, better options while the passive stay behind.
Reverse network effect? Reverse Eternal September?
Appeals Court Agrees with EFF that Building a Web Browser Doesn’t Violate the CFAA - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49176714 - August 2026
> The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has endorsed a commonsense technical interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a law not usually given to such interpretation. Amazon had sued Perplexity AI to try to shut down its Comet browser, claiming the browser’s optional agentic AI “Assistant” that can browse websites like Amazon for comparison shopping purposes, violated the CFAA because Amazon did not “authorize” Perplexity to access Amazon users’ accounts. Rejecting that theory, the Ninth Circuit held that Perplexity was unlikely to be liable because users operate the tool, not Perplexity.
> That’s the right conclusion, as both a legal and technical matter. As we explained to the court in our amicus brief, the CFAA requires unauthorized “access,” and Perplexity itself does not access Amazon’s servers—users of the Comet browser do. The court agreed, noting that EFF’s explanation “articulates the nature of the system most clearly.”
Another has-been.