Live data from Hacker News

Alive internet theory

alivetheory.net

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: Alive internet theory

#51
post #48

Somehow, reading the comments made something CLICK for me about how passive and reactive we have all become in this culture. 1. The issue is real. Not sure it is articulated but I related to live vs dead internet. 2. The comments (only 10 as of now) are mostly critiques. (no javascript, call to action, style, theory is wrong) The CLICK: "Critiques kill". You want a live internet? Don't critique. If you want a no java…

Does your comment need an AI disclaimer? The tone reeks of it.

Absolutely not AI unless they manually edited it, in which case it isn't AI in a meaningful way. Need to tune your AIdar.

Re: Alive internet theory

#52
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. This is cool and fun and interesting, and dares to be unique. That’s what the Internet should be. It’s legitimately dangerous how reliant so many people are on computers and the Internet for entertainment, information, and their livelihoods almost entirely as passive consumers or users. We need to bring back something like the MySpace era, I think. I think it’s underrated how much devices, tools,…

Problem: the Internet is dangerous now. What you put in "your space" might get you fired, deported, etc. (Even if you think you're only posting safe things, consider the person who finds your space might not be sensible.) And not just people - everything you ever post can be assumed to be saved by countless "AI" systems by well-resourced groups, for future bad people to search through. See the imprisonment of Larry B…

> Problem: the Internet is dangerous now. What you put in "your space" might get you fired, deported, etc.

> Posting anything is a risk. What benefit do you get from it - does it outweigh the risk? In the past, both the actual risk and the perceived risk were lower.

Yes, because people post openly their hot takes to the whole world. Their internet personality is completely tied to their real-world personality. One of the best things of the internet was the anonymity you had. But at one point people started to think it was a good idea to throw this away.

Re: Alive internet theory

#53

Somehow, reading the comments made something CLICK for me about how passive and reactive we have all become in this culture. 1. The issue is real. Not sure it is articulated but I related to live vs dead internet. 2. The comments (only 10 as of now) are mostly critiques. (no javascript, call to action, style, theory is wrong) The CLICK: "Critiques kill". You want a live internet? Don't critique. If you want a no java…

> The CLICK: "Critiques kill". You want a live internet? Don't critique. If you want a no javascript version make one. If you have a better solution do it. If you have insight into the problem share it. Yes, and no. I think a problem is critique in the form of action. There are movements such as the indie web (e.g. Neocities, Nekoweb, Agoraroad) that long for the old web in their nostalgia and form a counter-movement…

And yet, what you are calling "the past" exists now in the present. It may be that some of those sites resemble "the past" simply because they value certain things, and those values just happen to have been prevalent then, and aren't now. Maybe to you those values look like the past because that's the last time we saw them. Or in other words, maybe they resemble the past coincidentally rather than intentionally. And maybe those values ARE the way forward. The future isn't always different from the past; in fact it seems history is usually cyclical. And it's not monolithic.

Think of a great jazz saxophonist in 2025. Practicing sax every day for years. Is he living in the past because jazz isn't popular like it once was? To some degree, sure, because his inspiration and source material is probably 60- and 80-year-old recordings. But is he cynical for appreciating craft, improvisation and organic individual expression over convenient digital production? And how should he advance his values? By trying to convert Taylor Swift into a jazz saxophonist? That's never going to happen. And it's not cynical to think so, it's just obvious. (Edit: To some degree it might even be wrong, because she would have to deny her inherent Taylorness.) No, the way he can advance those values is by living them himself. Which is the epitome of non-cynical, really. If there are enough of him out there, it'll be a movement, but popularity isn't necessary for it to be part of the present and future, especially his own present and future.

Re: Alive internet theory

#54
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem: the Internet is dangerous now. What you put in "your space" might get you fired, deported, etc. (Even if you think you're only posting safe things, consider the person who finds your space might not be sensible.) And not just people - everything you ever post can be assumed to be saved by countless "AI" systems by well-resourced groups, for future bad people to search through. See the imprisonment of Larry B…

> Problem: the Internet is dangerous now. What you put in "your space" might get you fired, deported, etc. > Posting anything is a risk. What benefit do you get from it - does it outweigh the risk? In the past, both the actual risk and the perceived risk were lower. Yes, because people post openly their hot takes to the whole world. Their internet personality is completely tied to their real-world personality. One of…

Every new generation reinvents itself to fix what it sees wrong with the ones before it. But they can’t undo what already happened. The Internet is too deeply embedded in our lives now and too useful for that to change. And if bad actors insist on polluting the commons/letting AI run loose on it the only way to get any kind of accountability is for there to be identity mechanisms whenever you’re interacting with people beyond those you already know.

But regardless, it’s like a party that started out as a group of friends, then an entire subculture, then an entire personality type, then everybody else kinda watching through the windows, and now all those people are here but too shy to participate. I remember the end of the anonymity era, and looking back, it really did enable people to just be cruel and nasty in a way that scared away 90% of personality types.

Now a different kind of personality just sees the whole thing as a dump, strip mine, or a mark and the rest of us grew up. And I see an entire generation who truly internalized the cynicism of anonymous Reddit commenters who probably knew just as much about the world as they did, who are real people looking for any kind of authenticity or help they can find, and settling for that.

So, I think people are almost ready to start being truly sincere, forgiving, and graceful to each other on the Internet as long as they can expect to receive it back in kind. Partially because we have no choice, but it would be good anyway.

Re: Alive internet theory

#55
post #34

Uh, definitely NSFW. Did not expect to see porn and other questionable graphic material. I mean, that is what I remember from the "alive internet", so it's not wrong perhaps, but maybe should be flagged as such.

Pretty sure it reacts to your cookies.

I think it's just pulling random stuff from archive.org on a given date.

Re: Alive internet theory

#57

Somehow, reading the comments made something CLICK for me about how passive and reactive we have all become in this culture. 1. The issue is real. Not sure it is articulated but I related to live vs dead internet. 2. The comments (only 10 as of now) are mostly critiques. (no javascript, call to action, style, theory is wrong) The CLICK: "Critiques kill". You want a live internet? Don't critique. If you want a no java…

In the early days the barrier to comment was higher and there were no obvious points to score from doing so. If a blog had a post you had opinions on, you could write a response on your own blog, or email the author. These days we have sites (like this) where commenting is almost 0 effort, and people can rack up fake internet points for doing it.

The best thing I've seen in recent years in on bearblog, where people will most their email address, so if someone has something to say in reply to a post, they can simply email the author. It's not a public pissing match for who can have the hottest take.

There are a couple things that often resurface in my mind on this topic.

The first is from Teddy Roosevelt's Citizenship in a Republic speech.

> It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

The second is Ego's review in Ratatouille.

> In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

In modern times with comment sections, influencers, talking heads, and a seemingly endless supply of opinions from those who risk nothing while judging those actually putting something out into the world, we seem to place far too much value in the critics, while dismissing the risk and efforts of those who actually create.

While some criticism is valuable or even necessary, it feels like we've gone overboard as a culture and the balance of creator vs critic is completely backwards. We have millions of people refreshing screens all day long just waiting to call the next new thing crap.

Re: Alive internet theory

#58
post #8

The constant re-styling of the page was annoying enough to make me close the tab and not come back.

I thought it was cool, the UIs of the past evoke lost memories of past eras. But sadly, the images glitched out and stopped displaying after I manually changed the date. Probably due to my internet connection haha

I thought it was cool, but the changing text sizing/wrapping made it difficult to read. I kept having to re-find my spot. But I read slow and was too lazy to just click on the era I wanted to set it back while I kept reading. Keeping the text layout consistent with the changing theme would have been a nice touch, and maybe a good future enhancement.

Re: Alive internet theory

#59

I agree that "the internet will always be filled with real people: looking for each other". The question is will they be able to successfully find each other, and how can they be sure they have?

This ties in well with the Dark Forest theory of the Internet: that the public Internet becomes dead while humans flee to hidden, invite-only, private spaces.

https://charlottedune.substack.com/p/the-dark-forest-theory-...

Re: Alive internet theory

#60
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. This is cool and fun and interesting, and dares to be unique. That’s what the Internet should be. It’s legitimately dangerous how reliant so many people are on computers and the Internet for entertainment, information, and their livelihoods almost entirely as passive consumers or users. We need to bring back something like the MySpace era, I think. I think it’s underrated how much devices, tools,…

Problem: the Internet is dangerous now. What you put in "your space" might get you fired, deported, etc. (Even if you think you're only posting safe things, consider the person who finds your space might not be sensible.) And not just people - everything you ever post can be assumed to be saved by countless "AI" systems by well-resourced groups, for future bad people to search through. See the imprisonment of Larry B…

That’s definitely one major and related factor, but I do think it’s separate from the problem that all most people can do on the Internet is consume or post on someone else’s website. Participating in the Internet doesn’t have to be just writing down your opinions on somewhere that shows up on Google Search.

There’s this technical-nontechnical dichotomy that I think really holds back the potential for rich/diverse Internet applications, because the interest and specialized knowledge necessary for eg a “24/7 remote plumbing video chat” service or “open source education-adjacent gaming” is primarily held by nontechnical people. Not that technical people couldn’t do these things, but the people who would want to make them “their thing” probably aren’t professional software developers.

Anyway, I think we’re culturally ready to learn how to forgive people who make forgivable mistakes and grow from them, even though there might still be some “cancel culture”. It’s just better for everybody because it disempowers the people that would abuse it, and everybody makes mistakes or changes their mind over time anyway.

Post reply on HN