Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the internet became shit

herman.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: How the internet became shit

#51

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bdw5204 wrote: post #39
keiferski wrote: post #6

When lamenting the "old Internet", a lot of people forget that the vast majority of the people creating content on it were gainfully employed with strong career security. Meaning that they didn't need to make money from their hobbyist online projects, so they didn't need to monetize it. This is a lot different from today, where any sort of journalist/writer/artist/filmmaker is basically dependent on making content th…

I think a better solution would be to bring back strong career security. Allowing companies to increase their profits by laying off workers is a policy choice. As is allowing companies to outsource jobs to cheaper jurisdictions. There is no law of nature that says that the US has to allow free trade to impoverish and dispossess its middle class so that its upper class can get even wealthier.

Not allowing companies to lay off workers who aren't doing productive work would put them at a competitive disadvantage against foreign competitors or new companies, and then they still lose their jobs when the company goes bust. Not allowing new companies to compete with existing ones would entrench monopolies and accelerate concentration of wealth. Neither of these are desirable results.

Re: How the internet became shit

#52

Post by saalweachter »

keiferski wrote: post #36
sharkjacobs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either you're inventing reddit-but-each-upvote-is-worth-a-fraction-of-a-cent, or there is some sort of select professional board who is responsible for deciding what is "good content" on behalf of the public. Sort of like national public arts grants, or maybe public broadcasters like the BBC. Right? Or are you imagining some third model

I’m imagining something like this: a rich guy who likes art takes a million dollars and makes an organization that funds people writing about art, paying them $1,000 a month. (Exact amounts don’t matter.) He sets up a list of values and rules that are broad enough to not be limiting and specific enough to get what he wants. He personally picks the first 100 people involved, and then all further decision making involv…

You've just invented a newspaper.

Re: How the internet became shit

#53

Post by tayo42 »

cogman10 wrote: post #19
keiferski wrote: post #6

When lamenting the "old Internet", a lot of people forget that the vast majority of the people creating content on it were gainfully employed with strong career security. Meaning that they didn't need to make money from their hobbyist online projects, so they didn't need to monetize it. This is a lot different from today, where any sort of journalist/writer/artist/filmmaker is basically dependent on making content th…

Wouldn't work, because it's chasing after the dollar that has ultimately destroyed the internet. Because the internet means income for so many people, doing whatever it takes to get your website to the top of search results matters a lot. That means that the hobbyist making a website cannot compete with the businesses who's lifeblood depend on edging those hobbyist pages off the search results. What made the old inte…

Idk about it being just money. I think the biggest issue is algorithm based discovery. Algorithms don't really reward being different, they often encourage more of the same. you liked this so here more of this. Now if you want your content to be seen you need to cater to how content is discovered.

Money imo comes into play by people who realized that algorithms can be gamed to get bs to the top. The core problem is still algorithm based discovery. Even if you take away people who are focused on money.

Re: How the internet became shit

#54

Post by cogman10 »

asdff wrote: post #42
cogman10 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But anything that has turned into a franchize is no longer about selling a product Yeah. Sadly the infinite growth mentality has destroyed many a franchise. Most of the franchises are simply rebranded sysco foods reheated in the microwave. I pretty much just don't eat at old franchise locations anymore as a result. Why get fettuccine from olive garden when it's basically exactly the same as a frozen stouffers meal…

If you aren't getting your money back in endless salad and breadsticks while engorging on that fettucine, you are doing olive garden wrong. It is a restaurant best eaten by the heavy set and the stoned.

You aren't getting your money back on endless salad and breadsticks.

That salad bowl cost them 2, maybe 3 dollars of ingredients and those breadsticks are even cheaper. Unless you are eating 10 bowls of salad or 10 pounds of breadsticks, olive garden is winning here.

Companies don't offer "unlimited" stuff if they don't know how to extract more money from you than you can consume.

Re: How the internet became shit

#55

Post by keiferski »

saalweachter wrote: post #52
keiferski wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m imagining something like this: a rich guy who likes art takes a million dollars and makes an organization that funds people writing about art, paying them $1,000 a month. (Exact amounts don’t matter.) He sets up a list of values and rules that are broad enough to not be limiting and specific enough to get what he wants. He personally picks the first 100 people involved, and then all further decision making involv…

You've just invented a newspaper.

I don’t know why people are obsessed with this “you just invented” line. Ok; and? Then I’m suggesting a newspaper or a think tank or a nonprofit specifically aimed at creating better content online. How is the corporate form actually that relevant to the main idea?

I also don’t think these are the same thing, because a newspaper is rarely explicitly not concerned with the market.

Re: How the internet became shit

#57

Post by jjmarr »

keiferski wrote: post #10
jjmarr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes me wonder if a sort of "basic income for Internet creators" would work. Instead of individuals trying to optimize their content for maximum income, it would instead work like this: if the group determines that you make great content, you get a small stipend monthly. There are no other expectations or optimization requirements, merely that you continue making the content I think you invented Patreon.

Yeah, but Patreon is still beholden to the individual-market optimizer model. I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content. Maybe a collective Patreon-like "guild" would be a starting point.

You can donate to non-profit museums or art galleries where you live, and they will use that money to fund artists.

edit: or you can donate to a non-profit newspaper, or think tank, or any other type of institution that deals with this.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but the question to be asked shouldn't be "why doesn't this exist". It should be "why aren't more people aware of and using this?"

Re: How the internet became shit

#58

Post by sogen »

quasarj wrote: post #13

Is there really a good, working, add blocker for iOS? The one I use works some of the time, but often gets detected and blocked-back by sites...

Adguard (paid), has been working great out of the box on my iPhone. Tried others but this one has been the best so far. I don't use their included VPN, so don't have opinions on it.

Greatest advantage is being able to use Custom Filters.

One caveat: my aging iPad sometimes struggles or reload pages, and runs out of memory, not sure if I should attribute it to the adblocker or to the iPad's age, probably should restart it, or get a newer one.

I would also add to the mix:

• StopTheMadness Pro (paid too)

which can do two great things:

1. Show native video controls, and

2. Can skip YouTube ads

(and the developer is quite responsive)

Re: How the internet became shit

#60

Post by SoftTalker »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #34
sharkjacobs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either you're inventing reddit-but-each-upvote-is-worth-a-fraction-of-a-cent, or there is some sort of select professional board who is responsible for deciding what is "good content" on behalf of the public. Sort of like national public arts grants, or maybe public broadcasters like the BBC. Right? Or are you imagining some third model

the thing about "basic income" is that it's basic. It's unconditional. It's a an efficient way for a government to guarantee a minimum quality of life for its citizens. As soon as you tie it to producing "good content" or something, the whole thing becomes about meeting that criteria. Ad views are a gameable target. So are upvotes. So is board approval.

Yep the whole thing would quickly devolve into arguments over what is good or whether some irrelevant personal idiosyncracy of the creator should prohibit him getting paid for his otherwise "good" content.
Post reply on HN