The Web We Lost • Hacker News Board

Re: The Web We Lost

#151

Post by oscargrouch » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 6:32 PM 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).

I think im working right now in a technology that hopefully will attack this sort of problems..

i have fried my brains out , and i think i got a answer..

i think the root of all evil that is happening with the web is in its core design.. a common thinking that reduce reason to client-server (with the weak part bean the client and we know now who are the strong server part now) and where the protocol is on the visual entities.. not in the thing that really should be given the real attention.. data and information itself..

The answer was not easy to come through, cause "its not there".. but i think ive got a good point here.. and i expect to show it soon.. with a running code

Re: The Web We Lost

#152

Post by moheeb » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 6:50 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #146

saraid216 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Not knowing how" and "giving up" seem very un-Google-like to me. Give it time.

If "giving up" seems un-Google-like to you then you haven't been around very long.

The number of services, applications, and ideas they have shut down is probably nearing the hundreds.

Re: The Web We Lost

#153

Post by IheartApplesDix » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 7:32 PM UTC

marcioaguiar wrote: post #61

IheartApplesDix wrote: post #37

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.

Tell me more about how 1998 is your arbitrary yardstick.

Re: The Web We Lost

#154

Post by yozmsn » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 7:49 PM UTC

moheeb wrote: post #152

npsimons wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not knowing how" and "giving up" seem very un-Google-like to me. Give it time.

If "giving up" seems un-Google-like to you then you haven't been around very long. The number of services, applications, and ideas they have shut down is probably nearing the hundreds.

What did Einstein say about failure?

Re: The Web We Lost

#155

Post by locopati » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

regularfry wrote: post #143

locopati wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or DNS. Or probably any number of other foundational systems of the internet. At the bottom of it all, the basic concept of communicating data across distributed systems is the internet. This is where the original post is spot on - the new players are not interesting in distributing, they want to collect and retain, but not share, except in their own limited and controlled ways. To break out of that you need to break…

DNS isn't social , though, whereas email is. That's my point. Of your other examples, only NNTP comes close.

In your view, what defines social?

I'm seeing this as one point receives updates from many other points and announces updates of its own. In the case of DNS, it's domain record updates. In the case of email, it's messages. In the case of social, status updates, photos, events.

Re: The Web We Lost

#156

Post by rastem » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 11:54 PM UTC

I find it humorous that the comments on that site are only enabled if you login with Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail.

Re: The Web We Lost

#157

Post by rerere » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 2:42 AM UTC

cbs wrote: post #112

4ad wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compete…

I'd like to subscribe to your e-zine.

e-zines are a sign of the decline of civilization. We engage in discussion on Gopher, the way God intended.

Re: The Web We Lost

#158

Post by Intermernet » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 9:01 AM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #130

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…

I believe that TBL not only complains about it, but also warned that it could happen many years ago. It's annoying that not many people listen to him... perhaps it's because he's so polite and civil all the time.

Re: The Web We Lost

#159

Post by regularfry » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 9:10 AM UTC

locopati wrote: post #155

regularfry wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS isn't social , though, whereas email is. That's my point. Of your other examples, only NNTP comes close.

In your view, what defines social? I'm seeing this as one point receives updates from many other points and announces updates of its own. In the case of DNS, it's domain record updates. In the case of email, it's messages. In the case of social, status updates, photos, events.

If the messages are between humans, that helps. You can't build a community over just DNS.

Re: The Web We Lost

#160

Post by Avshalom » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 1:17 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #130

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…

on the other hand site.com/description combined with the habit of writing urls in english has allowed me to navigate a tremendous number of websites in languages I don't speak.