Live data from Hacker News

The Web We Lost

dashes.com

71–80 of 162 posts

Re: The Web We Lost

#71
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware that Tumblr had an export function, and it looks like, officially, it doesn't[1]. There is a third-party migration tool to WordPress[2], but that's about all I can find. So unfortunately, not all is roses. It would be nice if there were a standard format for storing blog posts and their metadata and attachments, so you could move from anything to anything. Perhaps the nascent Tent protocol[3] could do…

As far as I'm concerned, there's already two formats: RSS and ATOM. One can "export" a Tumblr blog by simply appending /rss to the URLs.

That seems to only provide the newest 20 posts.

If RSS went all the way back to the beginning, then you'd be right, it would get you 99% of the way there.

Re: The Web We Lost

#72
post #59
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" But to non-technical people, those losses aren't obvious " To most people, those losses aren't losses. You can't lose what you don't have. I don't think its just about techie vs non-techie people. There are plenty of people who could have posted photos online 15 years ago that didn't until more recently. Accessibility is one thing, a critical component. But, culture is another essential part. It's a component hoste…

The reason why people didn't post photos 15 years ago was that digital cameras barely existed back then. There was a revolution in photography in the early 2000s which made sites like Flickr possible.

And we only had 28.8k links to the Web!

Re: The Web We Lost

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find this to be true, but that's perhaps I'm not far richer than I was 5 or 10 years ago. Somewhere along the way, accessibility to truth was thrown under the bus for clickbait and walled gardens.

Accessibility to truth? Tell me more about how you used to access the truth in 1998.

You can read all about it here: http://www.searchlores.org/indexo.htm

Re: The Web We Lost

#74
I think this is an example of seeing the past through rose-coloured glasses.

Yes there was Flickr but you could discover photos. Thing is, Flickr is still there and you can still use it. What's clear from this is that Flickr didn't (and doesn't) cover what is the use case for most people: sharing photos with a limited group of friends and family.

Technorati? Honestly, I think this is an example of living inside a very small bubble. I'd honestly never heard of Technorati until long after it had waned.

I don't agree that the monetization of the Web has degraded the value (to the user) of links on sites other than links on sites aren't the primary discovery mechanism like they used to be, which is actually a good thing (IMHO).

> In the early part of this century, if you made a service that let users create or share content, the expectation was that they could easily download a full-fidelity copy of their data, or import that data into other competitive services, with no restrictions

This is only true to a limited extent IMHO. The primary services for creating information 10+ years ago were email providers. Because Web-based mail was a latecomer, services like Yahoo Mail and Hotmail grew up in an era where many people used Outlook, Thunderbird and other desktop email clients so they had to support POP3 (and later IMAP) and you could use those services to export your mail.

But that isn't the same as designing your services for interoperability. That was an unintended consequence.

As the idea of "your mail, everywhere (you have an Internet connection)" became dominant, so did Webmail. POP3/IMAP became less important.

Again, I consider this a net positive change.

> In the early days of the social web, there was a broad expectation that regular people might own their own identities by having their own websites

This I disagree with. Having your own domain and Website 10+ years ago was pretty unusual. Administering your own site is not easy, particularly as malware became more prevalent. This has declined because no one wants to run their own Website (or email server for that matter) because it's a crazy amount of effort for very little real gain.

The only real problem I see with the present state of the Web is that Facebook wants to own all your data. It wants to be your identity. It wants to be your Internet. That's bad. It's bad for the Web and bad for consumers. But honestly, I don't see it coming to pass. Facebook is just as susceptible to disruption as so many behemoths that have come (and gone) before it.

10+ years ago Microsoft dominated your computing environment. Many couldn't envision a future that would break free of this grasp. In a few short years Microsoft has diminished their control of your computing experience in ways few could've predicted. I'll just leave this as an example of the danger of extrapolation:

http://xkcd.com/605/

Re: The Web We Lost

#75
post #67

There is an example in there of how creating a single sign-on service in 2005 being "described as introducing a tracking system worthy of the PATRIOT act". That was years after this kind of thing was considered a problem, however, and it was somewhat rightfully so , and I believe the real story is that things actually got "better" as we came to understand these services more. I am not certain things actually got wors…

In 2002 Microsoft was still a dangerous (and the US DOJ found illegal) monopoly. THAT is why we feared Hail Storm.

Re: The Web We Lost

#76

Just a few reasons today's Web trumps anything from the 'Technorati' (seriously?) era: Open API's that reply in JSON, Cloud VPS's at $0.02 per hour, 10 Gb ethernet, 54 Mb fiber in my house, multicore computers in everyones pocket, GPS at everyones fingertips, web frameworks like Sinatra (yes, it took more than three lines of code and two bash commands to publish 'Hello World!' to the web back then), caching solutions…

We didn't have swarms of zombie windows PCs to be DDOS'd by back then, either. That was a plus.

AJAX is awesome, but I hate that every site uses it 'just because' and my browser in now hosting applications with persistent network connections instead of displaying a document.

Re: The Web We Lost

#77

Just a few reasons today's Web trumps anything from the 'Technorati' (seriously?) era: Open API's that reply in JSON, Cloud VPS's at $0.02 per hour, 10 Gb ethernet, 54 Mb fiber in my house, multicore computers in everyones pocket, GPS at everyones fingertips, web frameworks like Sinatra (yes, it took more than three lines of code and two bash commands to publish 'Hello World!' to the web back then), caching solutions…

Let's take an opposing view, shall we?

> Open API's that reply in JSON

The serialization format doesn't matter. What matter is that we have way more APIs, all different, with inconsistent semantics and non-orthogonal feature sets than the non-web APIs of 15 years ago. On average the people designing these APIs are less competent than the people from 15 years ago creating more headaches for the people that are competent.

> Cloud VPS's at $0.02 per hour

Cloud virtualization is expensive, not cheap. It has its merits, the overhead for elasticity is much less than it used to be, but this matters only at scale. At small scale you get unpredictable performance and terrible I/O.

> 10 Gb ethernet

No such thing. Even on servers its rare. I had 1 GigE on my laptop 10 years ago. I can't get a better NIC on any laptop today. The world is actually worse than it used to be because back in the day I didn't need to worry about saturating Ethernet. Now I do.

> 54 Mb fiber in my house

I used to be able to buy a symmetric link with a fixed IP address and reverse DNS. Now fixed IP is a rarity, symmetric links are usually not available for non-business customers and when they are, they cost more than 15 years ago. Reverse DNS? Ha ha.

> multicore computers in everyones pocket

I don't need a multicore computer in my pocket. I need a phone with good signal and a battery that lasts. They don't make them anymore. Even if I need a computer, smartphones barely qualify. iOS is locked and Android requires me to do a type of programming I don't like. I'm used to computers that I can program the way I want, not being bound by some framework.

> GPS at everyones fingertips

I don't care. I never used a GPS, never needed one. What I've seen is that now people get lost when their GPS breaks. I view that as a failure of civilisation.

> web frameworks

I'd probably break some Hacker News scalability limit if I started writing about this one.

> caching solutions like Redis

Redis is required because the other pieces of the stack suck. It's a remedy, hardly a cure from an architectural point of view. The broad architectures around us are more unsuitable and more abused than they used to be.

It's actually worse than that. Unix and Plan 9 have thought us that's it is better to model behaviour through a single bounded interface rather than a growing set of specialised interfaces. This allows composition, protects against lock in, and allows synthetic components. Now there's a Redis API, there's a Cassandra API, there's a MongoDB API, there's a Zookeeper API, there's a Riak API, there's a RabbitMQ API. Everything has an API. A different API. Not only this destroys composability, it also hinders experimentation, increases the technical debt, makes the cost of transition higher, and bounds the writer into using a limited set of tools.

> data crunching pipelines like hadoop

Hadoop is a a player in an extremely niche field. I don't think it's relevant to talk about a thing as specific as hadoop in the context of something as general as the cultural and pragmatical shifts in the Internet. However, if you brought in the discussion, Hadoop is awful. Companies deploy it because it's trendy, not because they need it, introducing complexity, additional dependencies and a whole new set of problems to solve. Hadoop also dropped the bar on what is considered simple and sane deployment causing new software to be just as awful to deploy when they wouldn't really need to.

> payment processing like Dwolla

No idea what this is, but payments on the Internet are worse then they used to be. Sure, now you can buy anything, but it's harder to pay. Paypal periodically asks me for IDs and freezes my accounts just because I happen to move between two countries, there are many more types of cards, some work on the Internet better than others, some banks work on the Internet better than others. Merchants support only limited and disjoint set of payment options forcing me to have multiple types of credit cards and various types of accounts I don't want or care about. Back in the day, you had a credit card, it worked. Now I can buy groceries and shoes on the Internet. Back in the day I could not, but I didn't want to. I wanted to buy various types of equipement, and that I could.

> There will always be folks hankering for the glory days of alt.religion.kibology and compuserve. Ignore them.

The article was not about the olde glory days, it was about a fundamental shift in the way people and machines interact on the Internet. A transition from protocols to services. I think this is a worthy thing to discuss and your dismissive, condescending post is not warranted.

Re: The Web We Lost

#78
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, there's already two formats: RSS and ATOM. One can "export" a Tumblr blog by simply appending /rss to the URLs.

That seems to only provide the newest 20 posts. If RSS went all the way back to the beginning, then you'd be right, it would get you 99% of the way there.

You can append /rss to the pages, e.g. http://[blog].tumblr.com/page/2/rss

It'd be nice if they supported tags, but it's still extremely easy to dump the content.

Re: The Web We Lost

#79
post #74

I think this is an example of seeing the past through rose-coloured glasses. Yes there was Flickr but you could discover photos. Thing is, Flickr is still there and you can still use it . What's clear from this is that Flickr didn't (and doesn't) cover what is the use case for most people: sharing photos with a limited group of friends and family. Technorati? Honestly, I think this is an example of living inside a ve…

sharing photos with a limited group of friends and family

This can't be understated. As a highly technical person running my own web services, even I rarely posted photos. The support burden of managing the server, securing it, and keeping family up-to-date on passwords was just never worth it.

Facebook wants to own all your data. It wants to be your identity.

I would love to hear ideas for ways we can fix this that are realistic because I completely agree with you. Any ideas have to recognize the value that sites like FB provide (as the OP did not) and come up with better solutions.

In 1995, I would not have believed that Microsoft would not be the focal point of the industry. The Internet shifted things such that Microsoft is no longer the focal point. It can (and probably will) happen again to Google and FB.

Re: The Web We Lost

#80
post #74

I think this is an example of seeing the past through rose-coloured glasses. Yes there was Flickr but you could discover photos. Thing is, Flickr is still there and you can still use it . What's clear from this is that Flickr didn't (and doesn't) cover what is the use case for most people: sharing photos with a limited group of friends and family. Technorati? Honestly, I think this is an example of living inside a ve…

In Technorati's defense, it's what allowed lots of savvy people to target the top 100 blogs and enjoy the network effect from doing that. A good example is Tim Ferriss' book, The 4 Hour Work Week. It was useful for figuring out which blogs one ought to be commenting on in order to create synergy with one's blog.
Post reply on HN