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

Time to rebuild the web?

oreilly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 449 posts

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#171

Post by kristianc »

_pmf_ wrote: post #163
kristianc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which works great, until ISPs start offering subsidized plans for Facebook, Gmail, Spotify, Twitter, and expensive plans for everything else. When that happens, there is very little economic incentive to have smaller websites, smaller e-commerce websites end up being part of Amazon, and Google starts providing more and more of its own content.

> until ISPs start offering subsidized plans for Facebook, Gmail, Spotify, Twitter, and expensive plans for everything else. Is priced content worse than the current situation, where services are monetized exclusively by essentially running malware on the user's machine?

> Is priced content worse than the current situation, where services are monetized exclusively by essentially running malware on the user's machine?

You're conflating two things: the revenue model for publishers and ISPs cutting off access to services which do not sign an agreement with them. The fee ISPs charge, you can take as read would not go towards subsidizing independent content.

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#172

Post by klez »

ekianjo wrote: post #150
skummetmaelk wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US there has been a steady decline: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/ci... Almost three quarters of all smokers in the US want to quit: http://news.gallup.com/poll/163763/smokers-quit-tried-multip... I think it is pretty clear that the information and social stigma campaigns run by people who care about the health of their fellow citizens have been effective.

in many other countries smoking is on the increase so it hasnt been as nearly effective as you think.

Can you give some data please? What I found was current data, but not trends.

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#173

Post by zimpenfish »

klez wrote: post #142
zimpenfish wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bloody useless for ~90% of the current web though.

Take the HN frontpage as it is right now. I bet you can read a good 80% of the links with lynx and company right now (except, ironically, for the comment on HN itself because they are not correctly indented). The actual problematic part of the web from the command line is dynamic web application (in this case I see a couple of links to youtube).

I've done a quick check and you're right about the current front page. The BBC story about WhatsApp is the first one that's really unpleasant to read (page 5/15 is the first with content, 8/15 is the last with content.)

The engadget link about Jolla is the worst because it somehow ends up as white text on a blue background.

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#174

Post by pferde »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #94
arvinsim wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet a lot of people smoke.

In the US there has been a steady decline: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/ci... Almost three quarters of all smokers in the US want to quit: http://news.gallup.com/poll/163763/smokers-quit-tried-multip... I think it is pretty clear that the information and social stigma campaigns run by people who care about the health of their fellow citizens have been effective.

That doesn't mean much. I know several people who have wanted to quit smoking for 20+ years now.

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#176

Post by Hedja »

vlehto wrote: post #166
kristianc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which works great, until ISPs start offering subsidized plans for Facebook, Gmail, Spotify, Twitter, and expensive plans for everything else. When that happens, there is very little economic incentive to have smaller websites, smaller e-commerce websites end up being part of Amazon, and Google starts providing more and more of its own content.

EU is about to enforce GDPR. Net neutrality seems to be American problem, while rest of the world is moving to the opposite direction. Which economy has better prospects in the long run? Currently internet is very U.S. centric because most of the big players are located there. That could change if European legislation is more supportive for small agile companies to evolve.

Net neutrality is still a problem outside the USA. For example, a lot of network providers provide "Unlimited Streaming" where they pick popular music and video streaming providers and allow you to use them without using up your data allowance.

Example: http://www.three.co.uk/go-binge

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#177

Post by macspoofing »

ahartmetz wrote: post #90
macspoofing wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When I ask friends and family who use Facebook daily, privacy and security never come up as pain points. This scandal is so incredibly overblown it's crazy. I've been arguing this since the beginning. Media blew this up because it's loosley connected to Trump and because there's no better story than when you tear down a high flyer. Facebook was/is an American success story.

What is overblown is the "sudden realization" of facts the have been long known to anybody who cared.

Yes. But even with that the underlying 'crime' (i.e. a not-an-actual-crime) is a nothing-burger.

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#178

Post by d--b »

kristianc wrote: post #124
d--b wrote: post #106

These articles are annoying. They completely miss the point. The web as it was in the early 90s was an alternative to major content delivery platforms (TV, press, mostly). So there was these massive systems that were the press and the TV who would own most of our attention span. And then there was this cute alternative technology with a great community that was yet unpolluted by the big guys. Today, the big content g…

Which works great, until ISPs start offering subsidized plans for Facebook, Gmail, Spotify, Twitter, and expensive plans for everything else. When that happens, there is very little economic incentive to have smaller websites, smaller e-commerce websites end up being part of Amazon, and Google starts providing more and more of its own content.

Of course net neutrality matters for the small guys to thrive. My point is that net neutrality is the only thing that matters. This is not about HTML or RSS or Facebook feeds.

A non-neutral internet would have impacted the 90s internet in the same way.

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#179

Post by guy98238710 »

d--b wrote: post #106

These articles are annoying. They completely miss the point. The web as it was in the early 90s was an alternative to major content delivery platforms (TV, press, mostly). So there was these massive systems that were the press and the TV who would own most of our attention span. And then there was this cute alternative technology with a great community that was yet unpolluted by the big guys. Today, the big content g…

The problem is that the average user is being nudged (pushed, coerced) to submit his content for free to a publisher who then forwards it to others with advertising or other monetization attached. Self-publishing is very rare.

Re: Time to rebuild the web?

#180

Post by throw2016 »

JackFr wrote: post #162
throw2016 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with Facebook. Its a legitimate use of the web. We just need to tweak the advertising model to disable micro targeting by both advertisers and platforms. Google is a far worse offender here. This will kill the incentives for surveillance and stalking at source.

> We just need to tweak the advertising model to disable their entire business model . FTFY

Nope. That's a false argument. Advertising does not in any way depend on micro targeting.

People stalk others because they want to, because there are no rules against it yet, because they are greedy and don't care about externalities, because they are happy to profess and expect ethical behavior from others in society when they can't demonstrate it themselves. Advertising existed and thrived long before the existence of the internet.

Advertising by textual context and immediate location will retain their business model. The hoovering up of data, stalking and building profiles for micro targeting is unethical and has to go.

Post reply on HN