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

Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#41

Post by whatshisface »

bumholio wrote: post #13
scalio wrote: post #6

Fascinating how the analysis gets wrong what becomes possible or doesn't (online shopping,...), but hits the nail on the head concerning the psychological and social aspects. > The Usenet, a worldwide bulletin board, allows anyone to post messages across the nation. Your word gets out, leapfrogging editors and publishers. Every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly. The result? Every voice is heard. The cacophony…

He couldn't imagine the vast technical improvements that solved all immediate, practical challenges he faced: sending money online, comfortable, ubiquitous devices with unlimited connectivity, etc. He clearly saw the wider limits of technology in relation to society. Liquid and online democracy has failed, we are in an age of autocrats that have weaponized online propaganda and misinformation to directly reach their…

>Liquid and online democracy has failed, we are in an age of autocrats that have weaponized online propaganda and misinformation to directly reach their voters.

Give society a little time to react, this has only been a talking point for one election so far.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#43

Post by ModernMech »

planck01 wrote: post #5

Well, he was wrong. And he admitted it in 2010:"Of my many mistakes, flubs, and howlers, few have been as public as my 1995 howler ... Now, whenever I think I know what's happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff ..."

I think in 2010 the outlook of Internet was a little more rosey than it is today, almost a decade later. The thesis of the article holds in many regards, notably on the social implications rather than the tech predictions. I think this piece will age well after all.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#44

Post by andrew_ »

whatshisface wrote: post #41
bumholio wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He couldn't imagine the vast technical improvements that solved all immediate, practical challenges he faced: sending money online, comfortable, ubiquitous devices with unlimited connectivity, etc. He clearly saw the wider limits of technology in relation to society. Liquid and online democracy has failed, we are in an age of autocrats that have weaponized online propaganda and misinformation to directly reach their…

> Liquid and online democracy has failed, we are in an age of autocrats that have weaponized online propaganda and misinformation to directly reach their voters. Give society a little time to react, this has only been a talking point for one election so far.

I would argue three elections (Obama x 2). No campaign mobilized like Obama's before him. And it was widely hailed in part to staffers who were able to leverage the web and tap the base, and new eyes, using social media. Love him or hate him - his campaign was full of misinformation, and one can point to his platform on, and comments about, the intelligence agencies of this country as a prime example.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#45

Post by andrew_ »

WhiteSource1 wrote: post #26
marvin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look back at Hacker News in twenty years. You'll see whole threads full of comments that are so specifically wrong it looks like a parody :)

That implies that Hacker News will be around in 20 years. Newsweek will be (in some format or another).

I genuinely thought that twitter was a ridiculous fad for trend-whores and it would die quickly, or remain a tiny niche. I've been wrong about tech so many times personally it's ridiculous.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#46

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

emacsen wrote: post #34

A little context on the author is in order. His name is Clifford Stoll and he was a physicist and early Internet user. He wrote the book "The Cuckoo's Egg" which should be required reading for all sys-admins. In the mid-90s, he saw the Internet as something akin to Fahrenheit 451 and began preaching how it would tear us apart as a society. To that end, he wrote Silicon Snake Oil and articles like this one, which comb…

Heh. Funny thing is I had absolutely no idea who he was until you mentioned the Klein bottle thing. Then a little light bulb went off in my head. I guess my brain filed him away as "Klein bottle guy" at some point in the past. Funny how the brain works sometimes.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#47

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

GordonS wrote: post #23
eksemplar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VR would be my bet. Every time is exit VR I feel like my monitor is limiting. It requires quite a lot of work though, and unlike the web, it probably can’t be done by one person in a basement. Which I think is important to it’s impact, because google probably wouldn’t have existed if it couldn’t have started small and gradually build its way up.

It feels like decent VR has been 'any time now' away for decades . Is Oculus still the only real attempt at it these days?

I have to admit I often feel like VR will be the next 3DTV.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#48

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

marvin wrote: post #20
gboudrias wrote: post #3

This is so hilariously, specifically wrong, you'd think someone wrote it now and travelled back in time for giggles. Great find! And I'm amazed they still have the article online, the only one by Clifford Stoll, funnily enough. Still, a good lesson: It remains too easy to miss the forest for the trees. We never wanted salesmen or paper, what we actually wanted were products and information. In other words, it's easy…

Look back at Hacker News in twenty years. You'll see whole threads full of comments that are so specifically wrong it looks like a parody :)

You don't need to wait 20 years for this. Often it's weeks or even days.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#49

Post by rainbowmverse »

NegatioN wrote: post #11

I feel like this phrase rings somewhat true, even though he was off on many other things: " When most everyone shouts, few listen". It's quite hard to know who to listen to, and who is telling something objectively true in this environment, since everyone's voice has the same weight. And there are too many of them to sift through, so many probably end up listening to people who pander to them.

There was no shortage of hype peddlers and ignorant people with authority before the internet. All the internet did was wake more people up to this fact and force them to either start thinking critically or turn into cynics.

What changed is the peddlers and powerful fools have bigger audiences now. There's less space for the niche con artist because all the marks are in someone's downline throwing all their money and credit at a lost cause.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#50

Post by rainbowmverse »

EGreg wrote: post #28

Although most of what he said has been easily addressed in the last 20 years, one thing lingers. And it’s not because we can’t solve it, but the VC model has prioritized ads instead, and for whatever reason, social networking hasn’t had any good OPEN SOURCE platforms. My guess is because they would have to work across websites, and very few standards too off. What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human cont…

Your site has some auto-playing video below the fold and a spinning GIF of a globe from 1995. It's cluttered, noisy, and unclear. There is no point of focus. I can't get as far as figuring out what sets it apart or makes it better because I had to close the page.

Compare this to Mastodon--which you dismissed with all other open source social networks--where the project lead thinks hard and openly about the accessibility and value of virtually every UX change.

Post reply on HN