The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…
Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
61–70 of 164 posts
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#62The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…
I hear you. But this teeters dangerously close to gatekeeping, elitism, or something along those lines. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I think how others feel after reading our comments does matter. Better put, because everyone is on the internet now, the real world's problems are now the internet's problems. It used to serve as an escape, true. It has made the world a smaller place, where problems from a…
> “The internet wouldn’t have been created by people like Mark Zuckerberg, or any of the sort of corporate executives in Silicon Valley today,” he said. “They wouldn’t be capable, they don’t have the temperament, they’re too controlling. They don’t understand the whole idea of bottom up.”
I think the only people who want to use the internet in a decentralized, bottom-up way are engineers. The vast majority of people need a simple experience that doesn't require them to learn anything new or to make too many choices. That's not exactly the opposite of bottom-up, of course, and it's possible to have both sometimes. But optimizing for bottom-up vs optimizing for simplicity leads to very different outcomes. Sometimes when I hear engineers talk about how much they hate how popular websites like Facebook and Twitter work, it sounds like they don't care very much about whether their ideal internet would be useful for normal people.
I even think there's some of this going on in the privacy debate. Yes, normal people care about privacy a lot. But they mostly care about it when it impacts their life directly in ways they can understand, like traffic cameras or identity theft. It's hard for a normal person to engage in the debates about the Snowden leaks or the Cambridge Analytica scandal, because the details are technical, and the impact on most people's lives is indirect. Now, of course it's normal for people with a technical background to make decisions and judgment calls in their area of expertise, for the benefit of the public, without waiting for an informed public debate about all the little details. The world is complicated, and that's how everything works. But I think a lot of humility is called for in those situations, because you're mixing together questions of what people would value with questions of what they should value or of what you personally value. I worry about this when I hear engineers say things like "abolish Facebook". Like yes, many engineers would rather starve than give up their data privacy. But that really isn't how most people feel, and if you waved a magic wand and made everyone in the world an expert on cookies and IP addresses and databases, it's not at all clear to me that they'd feel the same hate for Facebook that many engineers do.
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#63Avoid the mainstream media, advertising-centric sites, social media, et al, and the Internet is mostly fine. Stick to the niche sites and services that have always been there and it’s a much more pleasant place.
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#64The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…
Well, the cat is out of the bag now. So we will have to find ways to deal with it rather than ignore it.
That seems to be what the kids are into nowadays.
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any new kind of "internet" that depends on traditional infrastructure that is under the control of states/corporations will end up being exactly like the one we have now. There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise, decentralised or federated versions of all kinds of things on the web exist, and work, today... Just no one uses them of course. The problem is none of these ideas seem to be able to obtain dominan…
I agree with you, especially on the bit about making something entirely and fundamentally different. I do see an alternative that the tech-savvy will flock to, perhaps they already have by deleting social media etc. How do you get the rest of the internet population to care about using an alternative that respects their privacy though? And it's not just privacy on the internet, but in meatspace too. Thankfully I'm st…
You don't. What I mean is that problems like privacy, censorship, centralized control etc, can all be solved with technology. And although you can't get everyone to care enough to switch to a facebook alternative, you can get everyone to "switch" to something completely new that makes facebook irrelevant, that breakthrough concept in combination with decentralization and privacy built in from the start means there is no "switch" to a competitor, it's just a "new thing".
It's all a bit vauge, but if it wasn't, it would already exist... and maybe there is no better alternative to social networks, perhaps this is it, and perhaps it's just a phase that society has to push through. But I have hope that there are better things, more fucking exciting things than scrolling through pictures of other peoples food and holidays that we have yet to dream of that will simultaneously make facebook as irrelevant as chemistry made alchemy.
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#66The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…
The big change was that after 2008 advertising on the Internet slowly emerged as a real thing. It’s the ad driven models that made the Internet hell.
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
India seems to have a huge problem with propaganda being spread on WhatsApp such as fake videos that mobilize mobs prior election campaigns etc: "India: Fake News and Agitprop": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0LgwL6rMPk
India has many problems with media. Fake news media, crypto fake media, deep fake media. Fake media is easy to identify. Crypto media and deep fake is more difficult. Recently google sponsored data journalism award was given to one of the most partisan website. And new think tanks which are sponsored by unknown forces come up all the time. One of the recent ones which I am investigating is called equality labs which…
Fake news is not the same as partisan news.
> One of the recent ones which I am investigating is called equality labs which recently did a dubious study claiming that there is absolutely no abuse of a majority group on Internet by a minority group.
Link to the study?
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#68I find these rants about social media patronizing, people are aware, they just don't care. It's not whistle blowing, it's self congratulatory yipping at this point. If you want to make a better solution that happens to be decentralized and works with just as little effort, then do it if you actually care rant over
Well, he did it is called Everipedia witch is a decentralized version of Wikipedia, it is a work in progress still but it getting better by the day.
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that…
> Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. [That's not the kind of gatekeeping I meant, but to your statement...] According to whom? That's one social philosophy, I suppose, but I'd call it more anti-social. From day one, [human] life has been about sticking together to accomplish more than the sum of our parts. Outcasts aside, the idea th…
From day-one, humans have had to deal with the very real threat of other humans trying to kill them. Unless you subscribe to a social-Darwinist belief that the strongest tribe can rightfully wipe out or absorb every one of its enemies -- and the weaker tribes deserve to go -- your morality must reckon with the real problem of inter-tribal agression.
Perhaps this is what you meant by "Outcasts aside, ..." But if so, then your argument reduces to "we shouldn't keep people out, except for those that we should."
Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that…
>Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? For the same reason it's seen as an obvious truth that everyone should be allowed to use a telephone, or send a letter in the mail. The internet is a communications platform, by definition it belongs to anyone who wants to use it. The internet being used by everyone no more makes the…