sbgthe internet is worse.
Well, it definitely gets the point across lol
Worse than what? Paying Atlantic for a subscription?
Whether we like the Atlantic or not, I feel like at some point if we want quality journalism we need to fund it.
They did it to themselves by starting out with free journalism everywhere on the net. And then it took them far too long to finally realize they ads alone weren’t going to pay the bills. If they had stuck with the magazine rack style from the get go (pay for it + ads) it wouldn’t be an issue.
If you give everything away for free for thirty years, and then suddenly take that away, you’re going to have a hard time getting money.
SteveI can’t stand when companies double dip. I won’t pay if I still get ads.
willyaWhat if it comes with one of those cologne insert peel back samples?
Then I must’ve stolen the wrong magazine by mistake.
You miss the bigger picture. The shut journalism and propaganda are still free - funded by … other means . That is why magazines males try to be free in the internet.
You’re also operating with the wisdom of hindsight. No one knew how to handle internet publishing. We all learned together.
I’m just saying what happened. History is inherently hindsight.
Doesn’t matter how it happened, only that it is happening.
The fact that yellow journalism is free and quality journalism is hidden behind a paywall, and the fact that many internet people are indignant about both quality journalism and paying for it while also guzzling down exclusively headlines and third hand information in comment sections through a firehose, are what will be studied in future decades about why there was suddenly a strange and convoluted anti-intellectual movement in this era.
Flying SquidBut do paywalls actually encourage people to pay? I would point out that NPR/PBS and The Guardian are at least partially funded by the people but still offer news for free and it seems to work.
NPR is funded by underwriters, donors, government grants, and licensing their content to affiliate stations. It’s actually really interesting to see how they’ve cobbled it together.
Point being there are a lot of ways to fund things!
My point is they don’t have to rely on paywalls. And I don’t know about The Guardian, but NPR isn’t trying to make a profit, which is probably part of it. Anyway, I use it for a lot of my news. It’s not wholly impartial, but it tries a lot harder than most American news outlets.
I’m just saying there are a lot of ways to make it work!
FireTowerWorse than it had been previously.
And yet not at all representative of why the internet is worse since this is a consequence, and not the mechanism making it worse.
Oh the irony
Possibly linuxI would get off google if I were you
I strangely feel very conflicted iver Google. I have a Pixel phone which supports the sevurity hardened GrapheneOS.
Were it not for Google allowing their phones to be so easily rooted, I’d probably be with Apple, who have their own egregious privacy invading practices.
Google also left rss feeds available on Youtube, which essentially allowed me to easily move my subscriptions to my rss feeder instead of outright subscribing. Then, thanks to Invidious, I just use an extension ti reroute any time I visit that channel/video.
Grant you, Google could easily remove these features that strangely enough allow for easy migration away from their platform, and I can definitely see a future where they do just that.
It just is such a strange thing for a company to have these built in aspects to their products that literally allow you to migrate away from their platform.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that this gives Google some sort of pass to do as they please. I haven’t used Google search regularly in a very long time. I still use their email and calendar solely because my current job team uses it as one of their main scheduling tools, but would prefer if we used something like a NextCloud instance.
In short, I have done some things to get away from Google’s suite of software and will continue to do so, but these strange loopholes, especially the interesting relationship Pixel/GrapheneOS, make me wonder about how Google could still make certain products and remain a smaller, much more regulated, part of the Internet as a whole…
Chrome browser is cancer, but also this has nothing to do with Google.
Good old atlantic coming to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
Altima NEOInternet was better when it was a bunch of forums and personal web pages
The internet was better when it was Usenet and Gopher.
The internet was better when it was a pair of tin cans and a string.
Oh sure, like that was an improvement over cave painting.
JamieThere have been examples that are effectively primitive shitposts found carved into walls in Pompeii. People never really change.
Forget shitposts, there were legitimate flame wars in Pompeii graffiti:
Successus textor amat coponiaes ancilla(m) nomine Hiredem quae quidem illum non curat sed ille rogat illa com(m)iseretur scribit rivalis vale
Translates to:
Successus the weaver is in love with the slave of the Innkeeper, whose name is Iris. She doesn’t care about him at all, but he asks that she take pity on him. A rival wrote this
A response to this translates to:[6]
You’re so jealous you’re bursting. Don’t tear down someone more handsome― a guy who could beat you up and who is good-looking.
Cosmic ClericCave paintings is overrated. Hand shadow puppets on the cave walls were always more dynamic.
Wi-Fi back then was using carrier pigeons.
Honestly, the internet was at its best when it was the fever dream of stoned, sexually frustrated grad students at Berkley. Infinite potential - it could’ve been anything. Could’ve. But wouldn’t. The real thing, after it became fully saturated in everyday American life, was always going to be some mediocre, watered down corporate cesspool of lowest common denominator, hyper-sanitized garbage. Because that’s what people like. They like safe, familiar, predictable, and uncomplicated. Well, most people.
We can get it back, and the antitrust trials are a big part of actually doing it
DEF CON 31 - An Audacious Plan to Halt the Internet's Ensh*ttification - Cory Doctorow
Sure we can but will we? No.
Twitter has only lost ~10% of it’s userbase after repeatedly abusing its own users. Reddit probably less. After everything we’ve learned about Meta, tens of millions of people signed up on day 1 to join their new service, Threads. Google Chrome still has like 80% market share.
Changing is honestly a trivial ask, but we won’t, because no one cares.
then why are you even here?
Sorry I don’t understand the question?
why bother to respond to the comment if all you have to say is "all is lost"?
…why bother to respond to my comment? Why does anyone write comments? We’re all here for discussion.
Nothing about what you wrote was a discussion, you stated for a fact that we would not do anything about it
That’s incorrect
You realize all of that old shit is still possible today right? Static plain html still works. It loads quicker than ever. The only thing preventing it is the creators of the content. The masses on social media were never going to create that so having Twitter around doesn’t change the possibilities. Get cracking.
No we can’t. It’s been consolidated. Sure some of us might get a little piece of freedom but the web is going to stay consolidated unless something major happens…
then give up and go away, or watch the video and reflect on your comment
God forbid you pay someone.
StrikerYup. It definitely feels like over time the human element of the Internet has been replaced by a corporate one. The most blatant example I can think of is youtube. Nowadays it’s so obvious rigged in the favour of already established media and a select few content creators.
But we act like youtube is something more then just a place to post videos. We can build a new youtube tomorrow if people weren’t so invested in it. If you have some content on YouTube you just can’t live without fine but for everything else let’s migrate… sorry, got a little preachy.
Yeah, that’s completely untrue… The reason we can’t just create a new youtube is the same reason there aren’t more ISPs. The infrastructure cost is too high.
You can’t just build a site that allows video uploads and playback, throw it on a Pi and release it to the world. You need scalability, and that costs money.
Maybe the end solution is a distributed system, but that’s not something you can easily sell to the average Joe that doesn’t give a shit about the “how” or “why” with Youtube, and simply wants to watch videos.
I’m not saying that Google isn’t the scum of the earth, but there is currently no feasible way to recreate what they’ve made/bought without an absolutely stupid amount of money.
Hagels_BagelsMaybe the end solution is a distributed system
I think this already exists and is called PeerTube. In my experience it doesn’t work very well.
YouTube itself is bound to implode because of the cost of all that infrastructure… sheesh. I recently reduced my YT time to the bare minimum, after being screwed out of premium (light), and found out about Peertube. It’s pretty bare bones, but viral videos can use P2P to offload the main server, which I thought was smart and fair. So, federated YouTube can be done I think. It won’t be easy though, or cheap.
We can build a new youtube tomorrow
Unfortunately not. The cost would be astronomical. Youtube bled money like a stuck pig for a long time, and their monetization has turned out predictably awful, every time.
Don't get me wrong, the competition would be great, or at least having the option of something... less Youtube. There's a reason you don't see a lot of alternatives around, though, and certainly nothing at the same kind of scale.
I get your heart’s in the right place. But good luck finding investors to pay for the massive infrastructure costs to back your YouTube alternative (read competitor) without a plan to extract money from someone. Not even to break even, but to turn a profit.
It would be nice if there was public money to create these alternatives - that was m way you wouldn’t have to worry about profit, just whether your solution is meeting the public need.
That said I’m with you. I try to avoid YouTube whenever I can. Wish more people would do the same
Dizzy Devil DuckyI don’t know how much it costs to run or how ads fully function on the service, but we do have Odysee. I have yet to have seen a single ad from my collection in the app outside of creators whose vid that’s also up on yt having a sponsored segment.
Yeah I’m feeling less like a participant, and more like a consumer on the “greater internet” (five big), compared to the early days when corporate presence was minimal, and not remotely slick or subtle. It was like dorky and obvious, and didn’t seem remotely like a threat.
GladiusBAnywhere there is money there are charlatans
Feeling like a consumer is a great way to put it. It especially feels more and more like it when trying to do even the most mundane tasks. Like if you own a product but need to ask a question on Google about it, first you have to scroll past the links to pages trying to sell you the product you typed in, then you might get some reddit links, 2-3 from a smaller forum, and then more links trying to sell you the product. It will say there’s thousands of results, but it’s just the same 6 links to purchase the product over and over again. So now even basic web searches are mainly for buying stuff.
And then now that Alphabet owns YouTube, the first couple results are always monetized videos… It’s brutal.
Simple, capitalism found a new promised land. The next space to fill up. And manifest destiny within.
Unfortunately but fortunately as well, it’s an infinite space. Early money has built large infrastructure within it. It’s been built over time and now is so massive it’s hard to comprehend in the real world. It’s nearly impossible to compete with them other than them tearing themselves down, but the space is still nearly infinitely large and competitors can still rise in the fringe and who knows after decades maybe rise to the same kinda massive company
So now we must limit the infinite. Cull all of it to the finite they can control. The virtual world is real, the metaverse is already upon us, and unfortunately it’s already starting to look like the late capitalism asphalt shopping plazas.
So it’s worse cause it’s built for the investors and being limited for them too. It’s why people beg for the next BIG thing, so that they can find new land or new ways to control this 4th space.
SnausagesinaBlanketso that they can find new land or new ways to control this 4th space. Pretty sure that Meta was meant to be the next big market space.
I think Zuckerberg was expecting all of us to sit in a chair with VR headsets on all day and buy buy buy.
I personally feel like it’s a total invasion of my privacy because it learns “me” and then tries to influence my every move a lot more intimately than cookies in a browser does.
100% absolute control over your life to sell you as much as possible…
And people consider that a utopia and not a problem
TheSaneWriterIt also shows how detached some of these billionaires really are. A VR system is not yet affordable for the majority of Americans, and the technology has much more development to do before it's as widespread as video game consoles, never mind PCs.