The Web We Lost • Hacker News Board

Re: The Web We Lost

#121

Post by dlitz » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 6:23 AM UTC

locopati wrote: post #105

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

'I would love to hear ideas for ways we can fix this that are realistic' Peer-to-peer social with discovery. A system where companies/people/groups could self-host their own server, companies could host for others, but all the systems could talk to one another. Data gets stored where you want it to - on your own system or on another (though it's portable even there, by design).

You guys should touch base with the https://tent.io guys.

Re: The Web We Lost

#122

Post by intended » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 6:46 AM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #115

locopati wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'I would love to hear ideas for ways we can fix this that are realistic' Peer-to-peer social with discovery. A system where companies/people/groups could self-host their own server, companies could host for others, but all the systems could talk to one another. Data gets stored where you want it to - on your own system or on another (though it's portable even there, by design).

I agree that this is probably the right answer. Unfortunately, it's a difficult business model to pursue and open source may not be able to solve it. I look at this like I look at Linux versus Windows/OS X (as I type on my MBA next to my work Linux laptop): Open source may provide an alternative that, for a certain class of people, is every bit as good as the commercial mainstream; but for Joe Sixpack and Molly Mall,…

You don't always need Joe and Molly sixpack. You do need the leading edge of adopters.

Some solutions aren't for everyone.

Re: The Web We Lost

#123

Post by Alaskan005 » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 6:59 AM UTC

cletus wrote: 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…

"The only real problem I see with the present state of the Web is that Facebook wants to own all your data"

"I don't agree that the monetization of the Web has degraded the value"

Good thing you work for Google and can give an unbiased opinion.

"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."

If you have a money-making website, the new medium, you have to pay tribute to Adwords or be bust, increasing prices on every item. The King is dead, Long live the King.

Re: The Web We Lost

#124

Post by chipotle_coyote » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 7:10 AM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #25

elsurudo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your broader point, so I don't mean to nitpick but: the majority (maybe all? I'm not sure nowadays) of iTunes track are DRM-free.

I knew someone was going to pick this nit :-D I just feared overloading an already-herniated comment with additional verbiage. Sorry about that. For the record: yes, if you buy a track from the iTunes Music Store today, it is most likely DRM-free. However, people who have been active ITMS customers over the years are likely to have purchased at least some DRM-encumbered tracks before Apple moved away from DRM.

While it is a nit, it's actually an interesting nit if you follow the trail a little. The most significant problems with the modern Internet, I think, come from the "walled gardens" that DRM creates -- and DRM is almost entirely the fault of media publishers rather than distributors. Apple gets a lot of fingers pointed at it, but I honestly don't think Apple -- or Amazon, for that matter -- really cares about DRM one way or the other. If the movie and television studios or the book publishers said tomorrow, "We want you to drop all the DRM from your files," I doubt Apple would stand in their way any more than they did with the music publishers.

Ironically, it's Apple's dominance in the music distribution market that led to record labels wanting to drop DRM, because they realized it was the only way to loosen the vise grip they'd inadvertently given Apple on their balls. Eventually the same thing will happen with books due to Amazon. Video is going to be the really tough nut to crack, though.

(Incidentally, if you turn on iTunes Match, it will let you replace all your remaining DRM-encumbered tracks with the DRM-free and higher quality ones, even ones that for arcane reasons weren't eligible for the $0.30/track upgrade. That, combined with switching my remaining MP3s to AAC -- yes, I think the quality's a little better -- made it worth the price for me, at least for a year.)

Re: The Web We Lost

#125

Post by gurkendoktor » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 7:24 AM UTC

acheron wrote: post #114

ricardobeat wrote: post #87

I think people are missing the point. Yes, Flickr is still here and you could use it. But Flickr never really got to mobile (a major strategy failure). Do you know since when Flickr has similar functionality to Instagram? Today - they just released a new version with filters. The point is, you can't build much on top of instagram, twitter, facebook, whatever. APIs are encumbered by pricy licenses, nobody wants to col…

My Google Reader account is surprised to learn that RSS is dead. How else do you keep up with updates on a bunch of different sites? (Serious question.)

That's "easy" in 2012: You Like them on Facebook (and wait for them to pay $$$ to promote their postings to get into your newsfeed).

Re: The Web We Lost

#126

Post by saraid216 » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 7:28 AM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #88

cletus wrote: 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…

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). When hypertext was still conceptual and imagined in microfiche, links were still the primary discovery mechanism of new or related content. I think that idea has stuck around for over 50 years…

It's worth noticing that, in Google+, only one link gets a first-class position in any given post. If you want to throw down a fuller list of citations, it's a lot less visible. To me, this says that Google subconsciously understands what they've done and have chosen not to fight it. Or they just don't know how and have given up.

Re: The Web We Lost

#127

Post by regularfry » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 7:46 AM UTC

locopati wrote: post #105

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

'I would love to hear ideas for ways we can fix this that are realistic' Peer-to-peer social with discovery. A system where companies/people/groups could self-host their own server, companies could host for others, but all the systems could talk to one another. Data gets stored where you want it to - on your own system or on another (though it's portable even there, by design).

You just described email.

Re: The Web We Lost

#128

Post by nnq » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 8:22 AM UTC

We moved in the wrong direction a bit, but still, we moved further and that's all that matters! "Average people" "wanted"/needed the web to become like this because they want "everything in one package" kind of deals and that's the only way they could swallow it... but they've swallowed the "red pill" even if was hidden inside a poisoned cheeseburger, so they're on the right track now.

And we had to move in this direction to get the "average Joes" and your grandma on board. Facebook pushes everything in the wrong direction IMHO, from privacy and censorship and content monetarization to technology (PHP, Hiphop, C++, hackathlons?! what new "toxic" technologies and ideas will they support or "invent" next?), but they and those like them brought "the people" online.

But now that they've survived the poisoned cheeseburgers and digested them, it's time to reap the benefits of the red pill. Now that we've taken the detour necessary to get the non-techies on board, it's time to steer the ship in the right direction!

Re: The Web We Lost

#129

Post by godDLL » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 8:41 AM UTC

mmahemoff wrote: post #100

roc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Wordpress? (snark about technical messes aside) It's as easy as it can possibly be to get a hosted blog up and running -- even with your own domain -- via their forms. But, unlike Facebook, if you don't like their service, or need more, or don't like some ToS change or version 'update', you can wrap it up with a bow and take it elsewhere. And businesses exist that will even make that as easy as filling out…

I write a lot on both WordPress and Google Plus, and Google Plus is way easier for basic authoring. Image uploading, post re-sharing, dealing with comments...all much simpler on G+. I still use WordPress because I prefer to own more important content, but I'm under no illusions about ease of management and writing. "And businesses exist that will even make that as easy as filling out a form." Which businesses? I rece…

I've had a job where babysitting the hosting business clients was part of service description. Including things like custom WP plugins, and modifications. Dig that.

Must have been fairly lucrative at the time, now that I think of it. But it must have made sense for the client, as some of them I see are still hosting their business with that firm; that's a small sample and just a few years down the line, but are you sure you're not looking at the subject from inside your own bubble?

Re: The Web We Lost

#130

Post by jasonkester » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 9:02 AM UTC

Anybody remember meaningful URLs?

As in, site.com/view?postid=1234 or site.com/view?userid=1234. Back when "the URL [was] the new command line" and you could easily discover all the content from a site and rework it as you liked. You could tell how many posts a blog had or how many users a site had by pluggin in a few numbers and doing a binary search. No need for an API or a feed. Just look at the URL and you could see what you needed to mess with.

Then SEO happened and URLs started looking like site.com/10-shocking-secrets-about-cat-odor-control-devices, which you can't really do anything with except shorten them to shrt.nr/Ssk and make them even less meaningful.

It always surprised me that nobody complained when we started losing that.