51–60 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the cool stuff has gone back to IRL. Once people stopped making potato gun websites, the internet really stopped blossoming into an amazingly vibrant space. I would recommend hackaday.com because it hasn't changed in quite some time.
I used to go online to escape the boring, unimaginative people and the world they create. Now I have to disconnect to escape them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's depressing. I know somebody who started a business that was successful for a while and then failed. Spammers got control of the domain and now it is full of ads for a dangerous diet drug. What makes my blood boil is that it impugns the integrity of the founder who is a decent person who has nothing to do with that scam.
Domains, if not outright sold by the owner, should die then.
Buddhists chuckle at the notion of permanence and go back to constructing sand mandalas
I know your comment is probably tongue-in-cheek but I must say (without disagreeing, regardless) that perhaps modern day digital infrastructure can transcend the considerations early buddhists may have had for the natural world and then-contemporary human-built structures.
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man
Heraclitus
Stop being pessimistic
I am increasingly worried about the valuable content on YouTube. There are so many old live concerts, useful how-to videos and other cultural treasures amidst all the junk. I suspect that one day, they will make their ads unblockable by embedding them in the video files. I sure hope that some people are downloading the valuable stuff and stashing it away to load onto YouTube's successor.
I am increasingly worried about the valuable content on YouTube. There are so many old live concerts, useful how-to videos and other cultural treasures amidst all the junk. I suspect that one day, they will make their ads unblockable by embedding them in the video files. I sure hope that some people are downloading the valuable stuff and stashing it away to load onto YouTube's successor.
In fifty years how many people will care? How many people should care because it would mean ignoring the huge volume of newer stuff? A hundred years? Two hundred?
I haven't even read or seen many of the existing cultural artifacts we have from past decades and centuries, what would I do if orders of magnitudes more of them had been preserved?
In fact, I'm incredibly greatful that I grew up before all the random shit that I threw out there as part of my youth was subjected to obsessive cataloging and archival efforts.
Buddhists chuckle at the notion of permanence and go back to constructing sand mandalas
I know your comment is probably tongue-in-cheek but I must say (without disagreeing, regardless) that perhaps modern day digital infrastructure can transcend the considerations early buddhists may have had for the natural world and then-contemporary human-built structures.
I am increasingly worried about the valuable content on YouTube. There are so many old live concerts, useful how-to videos and other cultural treasures amidst all the junk. I suspect that one day, they will make their ads unblockable by embedding them in the video files. I sure hope that some people are downloading the valuable stuff and stashing it away to load onto YouTube's successor.
It's an Atlantic article so it's long, and several of the comments here show that people aren't actually reading the whole thing... but I did and it's worth the time. It's not only about links being dead, it's about the lack of transparency & audit when content is changed via takedown requests, it's about dead links showing up in decades-old supreme court decisions, it's about private industry's lack of incentive for…
The overall bent is a hand-wringing about link rot, which I thought we mostly got over a decade ago. The Internet is fundamentally ephemeral. If you see something you like, save it so you can repost it later. If you rely on someone else to keep in up indefinitely, you're being foolish.
Around the edges of that main discussion, the Atlantic also touches on censorship in all the wrong ways, re-iterating the too-common view that censorship is good as long as the good guys do it. They at least argue that this censorship should be transparent and censored works still accessible in some way, but they seem to not understand the nature of what they're talking about.
Censored works aren't censored to protect the public. They're censored to protect the rich and powerful. That's why "right to be forgotten" really exists. That's why Google and Youtube and Twitter and Facebook quash anything that goes against the accepted narrative in any given field. They aren't protecting the public from dangerous misinformation. No one gives a shit about the public. They're protecting the financial and political interests of some very powerful people.
Given this, talk of a "poison cabinet" only illustrates ignorance of the issue. The Memory Hole cannot be divorced from the censorship process, it's a core part of it. If people can still find the information in some form, it's not censored enough to make the people it threatened happy.
And this leads to the final point, which is that the real reason the web is "rotting" isn't link rot, it's censorship on the part of tech monopolies, due to their joined-at-the-hip relationship with every large corporation and industry imaginable due to advertising and other deals. The fact that links die doesn't matter much: you can just repost the material. The fact that links ARE ACTIVELY KILLED to suppress their information is a much more serious problem, and one that doesn't have an easy solution besides full breakup of the tech monopolies.
It's an Atlantic article so it's long, and several of the comments here show that people aren't actually reading the whole thing... but I did and it's worth the time. It's not only about links being dead, it's about the lack of transparency & audit when content is changed via takedown requests, it's about dead links showing up in decades-old supreme court decisions, it's about private industry's lack of incentive for…