Live data from Hacker News

The Bullshit Web

pxlnv.com

171–180 of 568 posts

Re: The Bullshit Web

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this rant, you should go the next step: All you need to 'fix' this is a fast loading news website that gets enough paid subscribers to earn enough margin from subscriptions that you can pay for a news staff, an office, and various overheads. That is a longish way of saying that 99.9% of the overhead in any modern web site can be traced almost entirely to the mechanisms by which that web site is attempting to e…

Hilariously, the New York times tries both: you get five or so article reads (with shitloads of tracking), and then you have to pay to read more per month. But if you're paying, the pages don't load any different. You're paying to be mined.

I agree in theory. However, I haven't noticed the slowness in their website and the ads are well done and blend in with the webpage. They may have to redesign/rearchitect their whole website to get what you are asking for.

It should be noted that traditional newspapers include ads alongside news content and no one complains. In fact people used to sift through the Sunday NYT simply for the ads.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#172
The Web is the quintessential human artifact. This is what happens when large groups of people crap and eat from the same pile, the fast, the slow, the brilliant and the stupid, the refined, mundane, bloodthirsty and curious, the intricate and obscure.

I think of the web in layers. Not discrete, divisible layers, but more like the layers of any ancient city that's seen habitation for centuries. At the lowest level is the oldest stuff: mud huts, stone tools, open fireplaces, graves even. This is like the earliest layers of the web: the webrings, the no-css, no-script HTML bulleted lists, tables of blue links. Even garish black backgrounds. That old web was full of great things; so many enthusiastics and fanatics! So much information and content, written by real people. Short stories, poems, hackers, phreakers, crackers, IRC, that whole great era. That old stone age is mostly buried now, preserved here and there in museum quality, crumbling here and there, broken links, missing images. A mute reminder, hard to find even, of what it was like back then. BACK THEN, before the next layer of the web evolved on top. BACK THEN people on the internet were mostly curious but not nosy or malicious. BACK THEN people put effort into their sites, had to pay money to host their domains, didn't need CDNs and VMs and Cloud Computing.

But a layer evolved on top of that old web. It came with CSS in my estimation. Pages started getting fancy, using new fonts. Ads started popping up. Ads always started popping up. Search engines popped up. Then people started making money. Little trickles at first, then a gush, then a torrent. Online businesses, the FIRST BUBBLE, and everyone was rushing to pets.com and eBay and online pharmacies...you know, companies selling actual stuff. Amazon. Online publishing, news sites.

That bubble blew up. It grew too fast, people went into far too much debt to puff up their businesses. But quietly chugging along, always increasing, the little banners and annoying popups gave way to a more insidious form of advertising...the watching eye behind it all. The internet started watching us. First it was search history, then cookies and then fingerprinting, then whole underground economies of trackers. And all the while the SEO battles and trollers came along, so fast paced...

And something...else...grew on top of the web. You can see it now, maybe just the tip, when you go to one of the news sites that the OP talked about. The massive, heavy sites. Those are just the most polished of this massive avalanche of click-baity slide shows and fake news and crap that is heavy, laden with strewn together junk parts and oriented to only one purpose: making money, by hook or crook.

Now you can't hardly see through this layer anymore. It's like a fog. Go to any search engine and search for anything! What do you get? Aggregated, evolved--I won't say optimized--evolved content that is designed to keep you away from the older layers. I say evolved because that is exactly the right metaphor--the crap that survived by natural selection and crowded out the other, more carefully crafted, humble and matter-of-fact content. This new crap evolved to get straight to the top of the search ranking and grab those clicks. It doesn't matter what the original content was. The more commercial it is, the crappier it is for real content, and the more driven it is towards getting you to click through and BAM make a sale. For god sakes, try to find some neutral information about insurance. Try to find that one guy's website that as part of a trip report to the southwest to go hiking with his kids, talks about how the rental agency wouldn't reimburse him for a flat tire. Or some basic, old-web archaeology like that. You cannot find that stuff anymore. It's hidden by a huge layer of commercial bullshit that is designed to lure you in, sell you crap, get you to sign up for newsletters, take surveys, or at the very least track your ass at the slightest sign you might be interesting. And don't think for a minute that it's all an accident, or some unforeseen consequence or poor search ranking function. The whole system is set up to, and rewarded by, and fed by, their ability to serve themselves, not you. Make no mistake. If the algorithm makes more money, it's gonna get shipped. People might wring their hands about it, but the slippery slope is still slippery, and no one can hold the line forever. Least of all when that takes mental energy and forethought...something SO much better suited to ML algorithms and scale. Just scale up to the whole web.

We lost our way. The web isn't run by us anymore. It's run by them. And them...whoever they are...search engines, advertisers, publishers, people with political agendas, psychos, dictators, people with power. They don't even have control either. Look at the news sites and aggregators. They tell you want they want to tell you. You can't even set preferences anymore. It's all drive by AI. For fuck's sake nobody really knows what to tell the AI to do, except make money.

AI. AI to rank what's important. To tell us what we should look at, watch. Buy. Adjusting news to either make us mad or placate us. Creating and reinforcing a bubble that absolutely always benefits someone else besides ourselves. We keep giving it subgoals, but it'll just keep going around them to what we really want, making money, because that's all we ever reward it for!

The fat ass webpages is just a symptom. The disease is that everyone is shoveling shit into your face just to make a buck. Everyone is trying to automate their crap as fast as they can, throwing crap at the wall to see what will stick. And they just. don't. give. a shit.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#173
post #45

Unpopular opinion alert: Maybe the "bullshit" is only bullshit to you, the thorny tech-savvy reader. Maybe businesses have tried the plaintext approach, and their business was improved by adding fonts, stylesheets, API calls, spinners, scripts, high-res images, and god knows what else. Maybe speed improvements are not important beyond a certain point. Maybe 5MB doesn't matter to most people. Maybe micro-optimization…

The fact that people want bullshit or that bullshit sells does not change the fact that it is bullshit.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#174
post #45

Unpopular opinion alert: Maybe the "bullshit" is only bullshit to you, the thorny tech-savvy reader. Maybe businesses have tried the plaintext approach, and their business was improved by adding fonts, stylesheets, API calls, spinners, scripts, high-res images, and god knows what else. Maybe speed improvements are not important beyond a certain point. Maybe 5MB doesn't matter to most people. Maybe micro-optimization…

I'm sure I am more consciously aware of the bloat but I do think that subconsciously "non-techy" people still dislike it.

I feel like this is similar to the apple vs microsoft/IBM debates. I'm not even sure what the popular take on it is these days but I do believe that to some extent a pleasing user experience was/is championed by Apple (in a specific aesthetic sense). And, if apple never existed we would have less tech products with that user experience philosophy embedded in them. I believe that illusive "pleasing" user experience that apple seemed to try to build in its products is similar to the idea of not having as much bloat on websites.

There is business value of consuming every single morsel of user tracking data possible but that tracking also has some cost in terms of user experience. Just because companies have tended towards bloat doesn't mean that they are definitely right. Apple has made a great deal of money and I believe some of that is due to their style of user experience.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#175
post #24

Have you ever seen this discussed outside of HN or dev-centric subreddits? Your average user doesn't care about this 'issue' at all, and thats why it won't ever change. Proof the author doesn't relate to any typical user: > I’m not asking much of it; I have opened a text-based document on the web Nobody besides devs would open a website and think "Oh this a text-based document opened in a web browser". Its a website,…

They don't discuss it because they just give up if it takes too long.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#176
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think thats a meaningful comparison. Moby Dick is a book, written by 1 guy and maybe an editor or two. NYT employs 1,300 people. When you read a book all you get is the text. NYT has text, images, related articles, analytics, etc. Moby Dick doesn't have to know what pages you read. NYT needs to know how long you spent, on which articles, etc. They need data to produce the product and you can only achieve that…

A random archive of the New York Times frontpage in 2005 is 300kb. Articles were probably comparable in size. Are you honestly saying that the landscape of the internet and/or the staffing needs of the NY Times has changed so drastically that they actually needed a 22x increase in size to deliver fundamentally text-based reporting?

I mean, if most of that is a few images, then those images could just be bigger today for nicer screens and faster internet.

Not that that is the case.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you're just reducing the content even further, just request that they make the reduction possible server-side and everybody wins.

I was more thinking about e.g. running a script to fetch 3 different lightweight sites, run some personal code on it and combine the data. If the script would spend 99.9% of its time waiting on IO because of "human speeds", I wouldn't be too happy. That said, I would be willing to bite the bullet and accept speed limits across the board if it resulted in lean web.

I think this is why batch jobs and crontabs exist. Just do what the BBSes used to do for syncing--wait until anti-peak-time and then let loose.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#178
Oh, wait a minute...what if we twist the existing non-net neutrality for our consumer purposes? What if we had easier mechanisms to slow down the more annoying aspects of websites we visit - such as those extraneous scripts on CNN, etc.? And, as we visit personal blogs that we value, we don't slow those down. (And, yes, if you're thinking to ask me about netflix, yes i would NOT slow that down. ;-) Anyway, if we had the "ease" with which to de-incentivize these web platforms, perhaps they'll be pushed to slim down their content delivery?

Now, before anyone replies with something like, "but you can implement ad blockers, etc."...yes, i know there are mechanisms...but i mean "easy" mechanisms...that is, something my grandma could implement with ease. i think this would serve to give true power to the consumer both on the net neutrality front as well as the content consumption front.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#180
post #114

> People really hate autoplaying video Yes, this a billion-fold! Every single newspaper site I peruse uses autoplaying video. The experience goes like this: Load up the front page of newspaper site. Select an article of interest and click on its link. Article loads. A video player pops into existence on the lower right hand corner of the page, and the video starts playing. Most annoying. However it gets more egregiou…

Stop visiting the sites then. There is nothing else you can do. Except maybe write them an email they'll ignore because their metrics (more like a "business analyst") tell them to autoplay videos.

Since this is posted to a site focused on developers, I’m surprised you didn’t mention the third option: Developers, stop adding all this crap to the software you’re writing and excusing it with “I’m just doin what I’m told!”
Post reply on HN