For me anyway, the modern web feels like the realization of those early internet pioneering ideas. I run my own personal site, with a nice open source google photos replacement, hosting my own VDI, streaming services, you name it. It’s all running on a pile of discarded speak and spell’s in my basement (a joke but only barely, this junk will run on anything that can host a container). It’s all possible thanks to the open source shoulders of giants I’m standing on and in spite of my lack of coding experience (I’m dev/ops). The fact that I run more infrastructure than my first few jobs combined, as one hobbyist, kinda blows my formerly teenage brain.
It’s still out there, just so long as you are willing to DIY. I am holding great hope for the fediverse, although I’ve been getting used to disappointment lately.
That’s the spirit. I hope this did not discouraged you in any way. This post was never intended to bring you down, but rather to raise some awareness to how beautiful the internet could be…Yes, I’m making this up. Tbh it was just a literal showerthought - I did not think this would discouraged anyone. I’m very sorry!
No worries bud, I get the feeling and it’s completely understandable when looking at the current landscape. It’s been an amazingly shitty run of luck for me lately so I’m clinging to hope.
This is why I like shower thoughts, makes for great conversation :)
I don’t ever see a server like that standing up to popularity.
In early days, you could maybe get 100 people interested in your site, and that was really cool - it might mean you have to get a second spare computer to load balance. But now, you go beyond 30 people interested, and you’ll have an army of bots scraping the site, people re-hosting anything interesting you made (animations, videos) on YouTube and TikTok so there’s no reason to go to you, and someone deciding to DDOS you for the hell of it.
I’m not interested in traffic. I’m literally a bored old dude who plays with junk. The only purpose for the site is me to play but I post for fun in case anyone stumbles across it. I’m delisted from everything.
Back in the 1990’s as a teenager I loved my little part of the webrings of personal, pointless sites full of random crap. I’d check in on friends on their personal sites and geocities pages that overused the blink tag and animated gifs. That’s the classic internet that I’m talking about, and I fully embrace it on my little pile of shit. But point taken so link removed just to be safe.
I miss that old internet.
Honestly, i’d love to check out your personal site!
Link I had posted earlierupdate- obfuscated: www dot snand dot org. This thread is literally the only place I’ve ever posted a link to it :).Cool site, thanks for linking it. I’ve been wanting to make a personal site for ages, but just no idea what to put on it.
that is possibly the best compliment I’ve been given in ages, it’s just a simple, fun playground and basically my social media replacement (just without the annoying audience :)
I was just going to check it out again to get some inspiration but it looks like it’s blocked?
Why do you want the traffic to specifically go to your own server? That’s reasoning backward imo.
Let say you made your own claymation animations. If people go to your own site, they get no ads, and can choose to buy merch from you if they like. However, a common issue for a creator like that would be content thieves with an ad plan. They’d reupload to YouTube, claim it as their own, monetize ads, and maybe the people who see the first animations there don’t even hear about new ones. It’s a bad deal for everyone now (not even YouTube’s fault - it’s the fault of the number of bots, DDOS tools, and click farms on the internet)
So it is a matter of copyrights and making money out of it…
That’s the spirit! One of the great things about the Internet is we can build our own alternatives, like with Lemmy and DIY servers. My friends and I have our own little Internet ecosystem. Outside of some Lemmy time, my personal Internet usage is largely served by our arrangement.
What do you use as a Google Photos replacement?
There’s a few out there that are pretty decent. I actually use two at the moment but will consolidate eventually.
Been using Librephotos for a while now: https://docs.librephotos.com - tried a few but landed on this one not for any real technical reasons, I just like the interface and it’s easy manage.
I also use https://immich.app - I started using it as a simple way to backup my families phone photos but it’s on such a furious development pace that I’m pretty sure it’s going to replace librephotos for me as well someday.
Immich is good alternative
It was discussed here recently.
I imagine you weren’t old enough to remember the early days of the Internet and the hopes we had. Maybe I’m wrong.
I am, and as a former Unix admin, I’m also amazed at how easy self hosting is these days. Hopefully it continues to grow. It certainly seems to be.
Docker is amazing haha.
I’m old enough. First had internet in 1994, made my first website in 1996. Back then everything was DiY, and most regular people didn’t really see the use in it until AOL convinced them by giving them email and easy-to-access yellow-pages like thing (which was AOL’s website bundled with a browser they could install without knowing anything technical). At the time, computers were sold in furniture stores along with entertainment centres.
I vividly remember explaining to multiple clients in the early aughts that AOL wasn’t the actual internet. They couldn’t find their new website because they had no idea anything outside aol.com existed, and they were entering their web address in AOL’s site search.
I remember the hopes very clearly. I remember before that when BASIC was fun and magical.
I gotta agree – this is the natural culmination of those hopes, if not actually better. ISPs are comparatively cheap, everyone can access most sites for free and with zero technical expertise, and anyone can say anything they like on one site or another. In the beginning, it really seemed that it would be very expensive and not very accessible. Those are massive hurdles that I don’t feel get enough credit in these conversations. I’m typing this on a small computer in my hand, ffs.
If you didn’t watch all that happen from the inside (I’ve been a software and firmware developer since the mid 90s and a user experience designer since 2002, and began fucking about with programming and hardware in the mid 80s), I can totally see how many people are more cynical about expectation/reality. From the relative outside, the internet seemed to pop into existence like magic in only a few years – and it really did seem like magic, with early-adoption consumers rightly believing it could change the world.
I think the bigger issue is that knowing what all humans are thinking is not as fun as we thought it would be.
I would really like to hear from people who are not web developers or creating software and firmware. I believe the experience for the large mass of humanity is so much less than the potential it had back in the day. Yes AOL existed but it truly was the low end of the scale. It’s not like there was people who did web development software and firmware and then everybody else was on AOL. However, it is a lot like that now. The people who are smart who are savvy who can find what they’re looking for in spite of the barriers put up to finding that still enjoy the freedom and the cheap plentiful access that they’re looking for. But you have to be able to get to it using command line level language and most ordinary users don’t have anything like geocities to allow them to produce a website about their model trains.
It’s indeed a utopia for the technically savvy. And that’s it.
Right, but I wasn’t talking so much about my own experience, rather my experience with other people during that time, because I was tech support for literally everyone I knew, so I knew what they all thought. Because they told me.
AOL was what most nontechnical people had during that time. There’s a reason for those AOL disc memes. It’s made fun of a lot, but that was how the internet became mainstream. They mailed them to everyone and their grandma, and their success was it was FREE** and the discs installed and configured everything for you: the browser, the ISP settings, and even their home page. You stuck the disc into your cup holder, and it gave you a friendly icon on your desktop to click to access The World Wide Web™ (or AOL’s private version of it – most people didn’t know better). Most people would never have discovered the internet otherwise.
eta: and yes, internet society was actually that divided in the early years. More so, if anything. AOL was so ubiquitous and marketed, they made a blockbuster movie out of it. You likely can hear the tone in your head, even if you never used AOL in your life. Few brands have attained that social status, or held it for long. Oscar Meyer, Disney, things like that. And it didn’t last a hundred years; merely a few. /e
It wasn’t just the discs – if you bought your computer from the furniture store it came set up that way. Non-tech people just clicked that icon and didn’t know any better. Keep in mind that accessing the real internet was difficult and required a lot of knowledge many people neither had nor wanted at the time. The computer was for spreadsheets and solitaire, and it was a very expensive luxury.
I doubt you’ll get the response you’re looking for, because the people you’re talking about are the same people you’re decrying today. I’m saying that idealised demographic didn’t really exist, and I’m not speculating about them. I was embedded deeply in a world of those people. I remember them very clearly. I made it my career to understand them.
I strongly believe you’re seeing them through a heavy fog of nostalgia.
eta: and back to the original point, I strongly believe that people who feel the internet has fallen short of our expectations don’t remember what our expectations really were.
Good answer, but I disagree.
However, I’m willing to admit my memory isn’t perfect and perhaps I’m wrong and things were exactly as you said they were.
i remember growing up I’d literally get a buzz off a good thread or from reeling off a good post. it felt so incredible being able to communicate with people across the world and be taken seriously, evaluated on the merits of my words rather than dismissed due to age or race or anything. and most of all, it felt like this special secret between you and other dorks. now everyone has phones in their pocket. going on twitter is like going to mcdonals.
Well, at least we have Lemmy.
I dismiss this comment because your age and race are ambiguous and everything else! /S
Seriously though I kind of feel like Lemmy has at least some of that nostalgic feeling. Surfing through instances, finding that one semi-active obscure interest community you fit right in with. It’s definitely not the same but nothing stays the same.
Smaller communties vibes.
The worst comment section of all belongs to Instagram. Absolute cesspool full of the most moronic people i’ve ever witnessed. Smart phones killed the internet. We need something that isn’t THE internet, and is only accessible if you have the patience and knowledge to connect to it.
We need something that isn’t THE internet, and is only accessible if you have the patience and knowledge to connect to it.
That kinda does exist it’s just that you and I lack either the knowledge or patience to connect to it.
No, we need something that is just accessible enough that I am still included, but all those other normies aren’t! \s
You talking about stuff like i2p?
If that’s what you want, it does exist. It is called Usenet and it predates the world wide web. There are still active discussion communities, though most of its bandwidth is used for file-sharing nowadays.
Knowledge gating was the reason the internet was great to begin with, only more educated people knew or cared about it, and the quality of discussion was better
*glowing on Twitter like a fly to a zapperX
I imagine you’re probably talking more about content, but you’ve uncovered a pet peeve of mine having more to do with the structure of web pages.
The original vision of html was to have this beautiful format that flows text and graphics elegantly over whatever space you give it. I remember thinking this is great! One day we will have pocket-sized displays and the web is already future-proofed to work seamlessly in that world.
Then fast-forward to smart phones. By now, web pages were so rigidly formatted that they had to design special mobile versions of every site.
This one is actually good. The second one kinda sucks IMO.
For a laugh, view the page source and scroll down.
Marketing ruins everything.
I think that’s too generalized. Marketing finances the Internet just as it has always financed print media (including the good, even inversitgative journalism).
I would definitely prefer a world in which sources of content are often paid-only instead of ad-supported, but the main thing needed for such a world is a higher minimum wage so more people have disposable income to distribute to authors they appreciate.
This would mean that if someone posts a rage-bait article like “Is Former President OBAMA Stealing Opium Money OUT OF YOUR POCKET?” then maybe people will click it, but the author won’t gain anything out of it.
The only way this would work is if you paid for a subscription to many news sources a la Netflix. No one will buy subscriptions to each individual author or publication. But of course Netflix now has ads too, so greed really has no bounds, especially once they’ve got you roped in.
Patreon has pretty much already taken that spot.
A bigger concern with that model is that then Netflix of news or whatever gets to choose what you see. We’d have the Netflix of news with their own baked-in bullshit leading the charge regardless of how shit it was. Esoteric sources would die and popularity would rule that space.
Yeah how about no? Knowledge should be free, I’m not gonna pay 5c every time I want to open Youtube or some shit. In a utopia you’d pay some small government tax that’d go towards keeping the web ad and paywall free, so the people get happy and the greedy corporate rats get their dirty money.
That assumes either all sites on the web deserve equal compensation for their acts, or some body can decide what the relative value of each is and compensate each creator accordingly. You’d go back to having click farms, but they’d claim the government owes them a billion dollars for their high traffic.
Even the government would usually prefer that citizen money go directly to the systems that they prefer to support, rather than go through taxes to a government program that sponsors them (that’s why you get tax deduction for transit usage and charities). That second route is just needlessly complex.
There’s also better models for payment than microcharges. No one wants to consciously spend 5 cents in an online action. YouTube could require users to be subscribers to view or upload certain forms of content, or each individual creator would integrate some form of Patreon setup. A really simple solution would be to divide someone’s monthly subscription fee based on who they watched most that month.
I think that’s too generalized. Print and written media existed for literally thousands of years before marketing finance.
Touch some grass.
I’m talking about modern print media of course, cmon. Also Printing does not date back thousands of years - it was invented (in the west) by gutenberg in the 15th century. What are you saying?
Printing existed a long time before the printing press. But woodblock printing lacked responsive design so we’re definitely being too generalized.
I am aware of that. Either way, in this context, it is not useful to go over the long history of writing or print technology. I just wanted to say that even the now largely dysfunctional business models of the print media - I mean, of course, the opinion-forming press, such as newspapers or magazines - are historically linked to advertising sales. There were even advertisements in books. This is how journalism has always been financed (in fact, subscriptions still only account for a small proportion of revenues). And it’s the same on the Internet: News sites are essentially funded by ads - the same way all major social media platforms and most of major websites work. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to claim that marketing revenues can be dispensed with, because creating content is very time-consuming and therefore costly.
I’m saying you’re responding incoherently to people making fun of you because you can’t tell they’re giving you shit for your bad take.
I’m saying you’re pick and choosing your battles so you can feel bad about the modern world while ignoring the fact that you’re a part of the growing movement against the corporate web.
The corporate hatred you have isn’t new. Infinite growth isn’t sustainable and the awareness of that is growing.
Newspapers, books, music, TV, aren’t dead, they’ve continuing to evolve and independent creators are producing more worthwhile works than I’ll ever make it through. And all of those were “dead” before the internet. “Video killed the radio star” after all. But, we’ve seen several newsrooms destroyed as not-profitable enough, only to get restarted as employee owned newsrooms. There’s never been a better time to be a patron of the arts or a music fan.
Even so, the world doesn’t exist online. Talk to people in your community. You’ll feel better and the work and art they’re creating is more impactful than “content”.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I honestly didn’t realize anyone was making fun of me (the joke is on me I guess, I just don’t get it). I don’t have a problem with the current times tho. But I know the content business. I don’t call it that because I have no appreciation for art, writing or other creative arts, but because that’s the term used in business. And from this environment I also know that profits are unfortunately placed above good content, which is why creative people, aka content creators, are not paid appropriately imo. I have also recognized this spirit, which I do not approve of at all, in many Lemmy posts. Only in disguise, so to speak: namely with people who think that intellectual property only helps large corporations like Disney. In my experience, that’s not the case at all. People make a living from their creative work and patreon donations are simply not enough - at least not for a regular and secure income. What I was getting at with my comment is that it doesn’t make sense imo to complain about a content creator signing marketing contracts - that has always been part of this business, even in the days of print media.
And I guess my main point is that focus on defeatism.
You also couldn’t make money as an artist at basically any other point in history either. But now you have more opportunity to try and make a go of it either in the corporate space (although we’ll see if AI kills those positions) or as an indie. If you care, don’t give up and watch whatever the algorithm is feeding you. Consume indie art from the people who want to make a go at it. They exist in your local community and there are several coops have sprung up in the last couple years focused on music and handmade crafts with the enshittification of the existing platforms.
What does touch some grass mean?
Also, what kind of print and media existed for thousands of years? I thought it was just religious scrolls and cave paintings
Just saying they’re a bit terminally online.
The oldest consumer complaint is from approximately 3800 years ago and is a clay tablet complaining about the copper they received from Ea-Nasir. (A meme you might have seen around, even if you didn’t know that context)
Ancient Egyptians were around long enough they were doing archeology on Ancient Egyptians. There’s plenty of science and engineering in China and Africa that predates Pythagoras’ weird cult. (Srsly, if you’re not familiar with the cult of Pythagoras, highly recommend)
Print and written media existed for literally thousands of years
Uh, no? If by media you mean anything that could remotely considered for the masses then absolutely not. The printing press was so revolutionary because it allowed making multiple copies of written documents without doing them each manually. Reading and writing was so expensive and rare a hobby because the written word was expensive; why would you need to read more than the basic signs if chalk boards were your limit of writing?
“News” before then was word of mouth. Town criers and the like.
My neato.
Guy replies with a hyperbolic shitpost about capitalism.
OP replies sincerely.
I reply hyperbolically in turn.
You assume I’m serious, then assume media can only mean “the mass news media” while ignoring any subtler parallels about access to information and adoption. (e.g. Does reading and writing being expensive relate to the early internet where access and hosting were expensive? Does the evolution of the written word have parallels with the evolution of the internet?)
If I’m responding semi-seriously, I do want to note that it’s only in the American school system where there’s no writing until the west gets paper. Armies of scribes carved into stone, impressed into clay, and wrote onto vellum to blanket empires in written news.
Armies of scribes carved into stone, impressed into clay, and wrote onto vellum to blanket empires in written news.
Yes. This semi-happened elsewhere. But this isn’t for the “people”. These were for the rich and powerful and the government.
And I’m sorry if your shitpost wasn’t understood. As has always been the case, text is not a great medium for conveying sarcasm. We did invent /s for that reason.
“No! There are absolutely no parallels between the written word and the development of the internet,” you growl through gritted teeth. “And while the stone markers distributed with text in several languages including that of the common people and placed in gathering areas did provide news to the people, it only carried the news the royals wanted them to now about,” you finish triumphantly, not realizing that proves the point being made.
well, at its heart, the ‘www’ was supposed to be a bunch of documents linked to each other contextually… in a similar vein Wikipedia handles things
you ever try and use the web without images? genX remembers.
Yes, I’m mainly concerned with the content. HTML certainly gives you all the possibilities, but it has ultimately led to boring but easy-to-use and correspondingly restictive UIs. I think anyone who wants to reach a lot of people today will do so via social media (original Myspace unfortunately didn’t work out, tho).
actually made my own site https://sandwich.sh/ you can do quite a lot with just html, I just don’t know what. the archive section is html generated with a bash script. sending it here because I think it’s cool
One of the early utopias was that people would no longer debate about things because the internet would bring people together and provide them with information about anything and everything… well then algorithms and social media happened, and now we’re stuck with echo chambers of anti-vaxxers and flat earthers.
Other than that, it’s been nice in many ways nobody could have anticipated back then.
Social media empowered narcissistic self-publication, which is one of the main things that ruined the Internet.
The problem is that the subject of discussions was moved from objective topics to the self. Every topic being discussed is now tainted with the insertion of the self as part of the topic, for the purpose of garnering attention to the self. Instead of the topic being discussed, now it’s “Look at what I’m talking about, isn’t this interesting what I’m telling you?”
Facebook and Xitter are very user centric platforms where you care about the person more than the topic. Meanwhile, in (formerly) Reddit and (currently) Lemmy I rarely even look at the usernames. I care about the topic, and that’s why I’m here in this thread.
I think the Internet really did make people more knowledgeable overall, but my personal theory is that, as a collective, we are in the area of knowing that dunning-Kruger effect takes place. With our current collective intelligence machines really crystallizing that to me, where if ask an LLM something it doesn’t know, it will act like the average person on the internet and make shit up and assume it close enough.
The information age really speaks to the idea that information is not knowledge, but knowledge can be formed from information. I think the next major revolution and why social media algorithms, AI, data science, etc are so hot is because they are attempts to enter the knowledge age. To take all of this access to information and truly learn something from it, at the same scale.
Well said. In many cases we’re riding the highest peak of the DK-curve, and you can tell by the massive aura of confidence radiating from some comments.
Reading the Covid discussions was absolutely wild. Suddenly we got all these people who seemed to know things about epidemiology, virology, biochemistry, statistics and what not. Plenty of confidence, little bit of information, but hardly any knowledge, let alone humility.
But you could actually learn and grow via the internet then. Information was free, available, and tools actually helped you find it.
I think that is still true. It isn’t that hard to immerse yourself in the free web. There is a ton of high quality and user-friendly FOSS software these days, much more than in the old days. I actually think we are living in a golden age of FOSS software right now. Other than games, I don’t have much need for commercial software anymore.
The same is true of information. There is a spectacular amount of free information available online now compared to 30 years ago. You can leaen to fix damn near anything nowadays just by watching free YouTube videos. Not to mention high quality, well-produced free videos, free podcasts, free databases and reference materials, journalism, etc. about any subject you can think from history to computer science, math, biology, literature… the list is endless. It wasn’t like that 30 years ago, that’s for sure.
Even on the commercial side, $15 a month for my whole family to access almost any music, anywhere, anytime? Shit, I used to pay $15 for one CD and the only way to get music on the internet was to pirate it! Cheap, high quality, comprehensive music catalogs availabe everywhere at the touch of a button is what we used to dream about and now it is a reality. And video? I remember the first video I ever watched on the internet. It was a tiny, grainy, 20 second video of a Shuttle launch being streamed over the internet… and we sat in awe with our mouths hanging open watching it over and over, lol.
That isn’t to say that the internet is perfect. The tracking nowadays really is horrendous. But, damn, it is much better now compared to the old days in terms of content.
You’re absolutely right about learning stuff online. Once I bought a mango, but had no idea how to cut it without making a huge mess. Well, there are also lots of videos about it, so now I know what I’m doing with delicious mangos.
i dont understand this at all.
theres nothing stopping me from building stuff for the web. dude, i run a social media server named moist
if your complaint is that ‘users are hard to wrangle away from corporations’, well, that has less to do with the internet and more to do with lazy/ignorant people.
i think the fact they use every psychology trick to hook and deceive them has some significant impact in this.
Yeah exactly, let’s not wholly blame the victim (humanity) here, that shit’s engineered to be addictive.
Please don’t get me wrong: I have the greatest respect for all those who try against all odds. I just think that the idea of the Internet utopians was that the Internet would promote enlightenment, understanding and education. I simply have the impression that the opposite has generally happened.
It’s not perfect, by any means, but it’s definitely having a net positive effect. Traditionally, the right has sustained themselves by getting the next generation “on their side” through various tactics such as messing with education and such. It worked pre-internet because small towns were somewhat isolated and the flow of information easier to control.
Gen Z, the first generation to grow up entirely online, has proven they aren’t buying their shit this time around and I’d argue it’s because of the Internet and all the information they can access regardless of if they’re in some podunk town in bumfuck nowhere with like 300 people or a major city with millions
At the time, the Internet was also a hope to break the power of the extremely powerful print media (not originally Tim Berners-Lee’s intention, but that was the idea of most early Internet utopians). In theory this still works today, but in practice I think it has gotten even worse: Opinions can probably even be spread more cheaply today by well-funded think tanks via a few, all the more powerful players - a prominent example is Facebook/Meta’s collaboration with Cambridge Analytica. That’s probably the reason why Elon Musk bought Twitter.
I know I thought that…but I was wrong.
There are these tiny villages in Africa, where people take laptops or tablets and a huge stash of DVDs, and often there isn’t even a roof just like 4 sticks poking up from the ground, maybe a tarp above it or possibly not even that. People come from hundreds of miles away, even walking, and they can watch videos from literal Harvard/Yale/etc. professors on whatever subject - engineering, lessions on how to speak English, biology, physics, etc. The barriers for people who truly WANT knowledge are pretty much entirely gone now, world-wide.
Which lasted it seems for about a minute, while instead now, misinformation flows even more freely. Those setups that I mentioned above took DECADES to create, leveraging the technology available at each timepoint, and more than a little prep work to discuss with the recipient culture to let them know it is an option. And even then, situations such as Boco Haram continue to threaten their continuation, bc girls (& women) learning things is considered bad in that case.
Thus, I learned that ignorance is extremely easy to cure (barely an inconvenience, if you know that famous YouTuber’s catchphrase;-). Entire courses are available freely online, such as the Crash Course series…of series (US History, World History, literature, biology, chemistry, physics, check it out!), and nowadays the most dumbed-down explanations of extremely complex topics as you could ever want, see e.g. this video.
The barriers nowadays to knowing things are “different”. See e.g. the movie WALL-E, where the humans all just gave up and sat down… but then were never able to get back up again.
The same was said about books, but have you ever read a dollar-store romance novel? Or newspapers, but there’s also The Sun.
Everything that can be used for good, will also be used for evil. It’s all there, but you have to wash out the shit yourself. That’s what seperates the chaff from the wheat, so to speak.
I’ve been saying this for years. The internet was better when you had to be a little bit more intelligent than the average person to access it.
Back when you needed knowledge of computers and software, modems, anti-virus, hardware etc, it kind of meant you needed a brain in your head to gain access. I’m not saying that made the internet an overtly-intelligent space, but it was more intelligent and measured than it is today.
As soon a smart phones and data plans entered the game, you could be as dumb as a second coat of paint and gain access with a single button. That opened the flood gates for the stupid. Now the stupid are here en mass and internet is just a dumpster fire full of retards.
Removed by mod
The US is using 40% renewables, China a bit more, many smaller countries are testing 100% renewable days, ozone was mostly fixed iirc. Progress may be slow, but to say it’s not happening is factually very false.
Also the rate of change is accelerating.
No sign of slowing down yet. Except maybe for wind but hopefully floating comes into its own in the next couple of years.
Wow, I’d never heard of floating solar panels before. Very cool!
I actually meant floading wind.
I think floating solar will come to nothing. Too much added cost for little benefit.
40% renewables for electricity.
Not to make perfect be the enemy of good, or to poo-poo that progress…but electricity is only 1/3 of GHG. And demand for electricity goes up with the move towards EVs, so while we take the energy out of the “transportation” column, we put it into the “electricity” column, at a 60% discount.
Thats…good. It’s progress. But it’s honestly such a baby-step in the grand scheme. We should be using green energy and EVs exclusively by now, and significantly cut down on meat and dairy consumption. We should be a lot further by now.
I blame Nader, the hanging chads, and Bush v. Gore…but mostly Nader. Had he not run in 2000, the majority of his voters, particularly in FL, would’ve voted for Gore. Nader got 97,488 votes in FL. Bush won by five hundred and thirty seven votes. That…the spoiler effect that resulted from an idealist candidate (and the shortfalls of FPTP, not to mention electoral college), is making perfect the enemy of good.
The same could also have been said of NH, by the way. 22,198 votes for Nader, Bush won by a margin of a third of that. Either FLs 25 or NHs 4 EC votes would’ve flipped the election and the course of history.
All probably true, but all the technological progress has done little to change the fact that we continue to destroy the world we live in with our eyes open. This is my point: technology is generally not used for the good of humanity, but for monetary gain. If we wanted to, the world could be a better place, but we don’t use our resources that way - they are not managed by the general public, but by people who don’t have the good of humanity in mind. I think the Internet is a good example of this: Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the www protocol, didn’t earn a cent from a patent or something like that - he was just interested in scientific exchange at the time. In my opinion, that’s a true hero, not Steve Jobs (he was a great businessman tho).
This is a very pessimistic view, and with a fallacy. The fallacy is to consider that greed will always win and yadayada. The fact is that it is a product of liberalism, it makes states resign from doing things to the profit of companies. Even in liberal countries liberalism is being contested though, and power countries are opposing it (for better or worse).
Internet is still there. And in some places, it won true victories against liberalism, like in Europe where net neutrality did won some battles and big Internet companies are being contained, if only to fight US espionage.
My opinion is that Internet companies are incapable of sustaining their tools, because they’re too greedy to provide a good service long term. Free solutions will appear, and ultimately they will prevail. Lemmy is a example that is at a baby stage yet. Most of the innovation and infrastructure relies on free softwares today. It’s just in the background. Computer and Internet technologies are still in their infancy, it will evolve.
Before any Americans get upset at this comment, keep in mind that liberal ≠ progressive for much of the world.
I’m French. Liberals are very conservative here.
In Europe, legislation is like this because it was enforced by institutions (meaning the state(s)). This is an achievement of a still halfway functional democracy. The source is myself, a European. However, I can also tell you that things like the GDPR don’t actually matter in practice. I am also the source, who has implemented both tracking and corresponding opt-in solutions for several companies - nobody gives a fuck; neither the companies nor the institutions. It is actually more expensive to comply with the legislation: There are no adequate penalties whatsoever. If you hear in America that meta/facebook had to pay a substancial fine, you can assume that meta/facebook has gained that many times over from the infringement. Greed rules the world, I’m afraid. That’s the reason for my pessimism and also one of the reasons why I think the merits of neoliberalism are a fairy tale.
I meant 2 things: first, companies don’t have complete free reign in Europe, that’s just wrong, and you’re mistaken if you think rgpd has no effect. Second, Internet cannot be killed, and companies only take over it because liberal states ask them to do so.
Liberalism is highly contested everywhere. I would argue that it is actually collapsing. Even in the US, as Trump shows, it’s showing cracks and weaknesses. In Europe, most parliaments have 30 to 60% of the representation against liberalism (although fascists tend to be elected to be against liberals, but actually l’y with them when they take decisions).
Things are changing. Things will change. When it comes to Internet and computers, no innovation comes from companies anymore. Innovation comes from free softwares. Linux usage is rising. Iot will further push this. That’s my bet at least. You could say I’m optimistic.
I essentially agree. I just come to a different, admittedly pessimistic conclusion. I simply don’t believe that things will change for the better on their own. In my opinion, this requires regulation that is actually enforced so that the powerful of this world cannot do as they please. The GDPR is of course a step in the right direction. In practice, however, it is unfortunately nowhere near as effective as it could and should be.
deleted by creator
Do you really believe that?
deleted by creator
It was meant for porn en now the biggest part of it is porn. I’d say a success.
As far a I know the porn industry has actualy driven innovation in various web-technologies including streaming, e-commerce, VR…and now probably AI, I guess.
We should put porn on climate change
The Internet is really really great 🎶
I’ve got a fast connection so I don’t have to wait 🎶
I don’t think the biggest part of the internet is porn. There’s a LOT of porn and a few really big porn sites, but I don’t think they hold a candle to social media and shopping.
I found this link that has porn being #s 14 and 15. It was actually hard to find recent data that included porn at all. I think some counters were too embarrassed to admit porn existed.
Those are just the biggest sites. Also 12 is a porn site. But it doesn’t say anything about the size of the total porn on the web. Like, amount of sites and content. Estimates are roughly 80% of the entire internet is porn.
I feel like it’s still mostly fine for individuals who are savvy and know where to look. In summation, though, I think the abundance of mis/disinformation spammed on social media combined with a lack of media literacy is socially corrosive.
Social media is a huge part of the problem…
Stop using social media and 90% of the internets issues stop affecting you.
Search is still fucked tho
Hopefully we can use AI to filter out AI articles at some point in the future lol. Or at least find better sources using Search.
Content-wise, I think we aren’t in a bad spot. There’s a tonne of information available online that wasn’t accessible before. Wikipedia is a pretty great example, but the millions of howtos scattered across Instructables, YouTube, and other sites are also pretty amazing. Yeah, there’s monetization and SEO crap, but I think (hope?) it’s a net positive.
Application-wise, I think we’re also in an okay spot. Almost anyone can publish videos, text, and opinions on corporate publishing tools. If you want, you can spin up a private server with just a credit card, and do whatever you want with incoming traffic. Web browsers aren’t quite Neuromancer/Shadowrun decks, but they do allow anytime to run untrusted code safely on a local machine.
Did all this free information bring us together? No. Not yet, at least. But I think that’s what the early tech utopians got wrong. We aren’t insufferable jerks because we don’t know any better, we’re insufferable jerks because we know better and choose to do it anyway.
That’s true, of course. I didn’t mean to say that the internet doesn’t also have very positive effects. It’s a blessing that knowledge is now much more accessible. But on the whole, it seems to me that people don’t really make use of it - quite the opposite. It seems to me that many more people are now confusing their uninformed opinions with scientific knowledge. There is no other way I can explain this strange hostility towards science that a not inconsiderable number of people are displaying - this is a phenomenon of the recent (internet) past, or is my impression wrong?
It seems to me that many more people are now confusing their uninformed opinions with scientific knowledge. There is no other way I can explain this strange hostility towards science that a not inconsiderable number of people are displaying - this is a phenomenon of the recent (internet) past, or is my impression wrong?
I don’t know. My bias is that human nature is constant over time. As such, I think we’re using the Internet the way we used other resources in the past: cherry picking statements that confirm our existing beliefs, and dismissing statements that challenge them.
I grew up at the end of the Cold War. Without the Internet, people were able to convince themselves climate change wasn’t a thing, planetary annihilation with nuclear weapons was an ok risk, and smoking was yucky but got an unfair bad rap.
The Internet hasn’t caused people to be idiots, it’s just given idiots another platform.
I’m not at all sure either - it’s just a feeling. Perhaps those who make up the world to suit their fixed oppions have become more adept at using the media available to them and thus appear more influential than they actually are. It’s just that I simply can’t understand how people can cling to the most absurd claims and even aggressively propagate them when it’s actually easier than ever to check facts today. That’s just mind-boggeling to me.
but I think (hope?) it’s a net positive.
Definitely a net positive. My friend and I were discussing something similar the other day. He rides motos and I ride downhill and we both learned via youtube. What used to be restricted to people who could afford private lessons or coaching are now available to people even in third world countries. It’s opened up a lot of new horizons for people.
That’s the unsung hero of all this. A friend and I were able to build RC planes with the help of a couple of YouTube videos and a printer. It would have been possible before the Internet, but it would have been harder and more expensive.
“The trick is not to ignore the mainstream but to selectively raid it for things we can use.” -Mike Gunderloy, back in the 80s.
It’s almost as if something gets infinitely worse once the masses adopt it
Normies ruined the internet
Thanks so much for that link! I have the impression that the point has been reached where there are enough users to abandon all open standards, which were certainly necessary to achieve a relevant user count in the first place. Now the so-called platform economy has become a reality. That was inevitable, I guess. All major social networks have been working towards this for a long time.
I recently played the video game Hypnospace Outlaw and one of the things that stuck out was there was a set of five “subverses” of sorts about nerd culture, and the parent company that runs Hypnospace wanted to get more of that sweet ad money, so they consolidated them into one space, and put it on a slower server. And when you visited these pages, they were noticeably slower compared to the new “sports” space which they did to chase that sweet new customer retention money, all in the leadup of, well, see for yourself (major spoilers).
What do you want? Do you want the internet to be for academics again? Because we’re past that. The moment you have to put a monetary value to something, it becomes about seeking monetary value either to 1) keep it going or 2) keep it going and make a bit of cream on top. This is how the world works now. I hate it, but i’m not pining for the old days either. The cycle continues from Geocities, to Social Media, to the Fediverse, and probably the Metaverse after that.
Nice try Zuck
theoldnet.com ftw
Well that was a silly 10 minutes lol
