Live data from Hacker News

The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

ouvre-boite.com

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#71
post #56
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Facebook social media before it started adding ads or not? Will non-monetized old school "forums" escape the wrath of "social media" bans for children? Will HN?

> Was Facebook social media before it started adding ads or not? AFAIK it's had ads for practically its entire existence, and other than venture capital investments, ads have always been virtually its entire revenue.

Depends on what you consider "practically its entire existence": the same could be said of Google Search if we are looking at how long they did not compared to the rest of the time, but I distinctly remember the period when they did not and when I recommended them to my entire social circle as The Search Engine (compared to Yahoo, Altavista, MSN or whatever else was there at the time) or The Social Network (compared to MySpace, I can't remember anything else that was comparable).

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#72
post #58
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Facebook social media before it started adding ads or not? Will non-monetized old school "forums" escape the wrath of "social media" bans for children? Will HN?

> Will non-monetized old school "forums" escape the wrath of "social media" bans for children? I haven't seen anyone trying to apply such bans to them. Have you? > Will HN? I guess we'd have to ask the HN moderators that question.

The first Google search hit for the UK variant of the law[1] says this:

  This includes a range of websites, apps and other services, including social media services, consumer file cloud storage and sharing sites, video-sharing platforms, online forums, dating services, and online instant messaging services. 
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act...

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#73

Am I missing something or is the thesis of this piece, or at least its main action item, a demand that everyone all of a sudden "grow up" and accept personal cost and inconvenience, and that will somehow save the open web? It acknowledges systemic problems, and then totally ignores them in favor of prescribing a pie-in-the-sky solution. It's like saying we could solve homelessness if only enough people would give to…

> We need to grow up from our RTFM tendencies and build technology that people can intuit how to use without a manual.

Concur to a point here. But these technologies don't drive the bell curve of the population.

This conversation could be repackaged as: "Why doesn't the distribution drift toward the technologically savvy tail?"

Sorry. People don't scale. As popularity grows, all drifts toward the mean.

You can have smartphones, but you will inevitably ooze toward a small number of providers making commodities out of the users.

Sites like HN will be the outlier.

Technological gravity, boss.

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#75
post #9

I do find it quite ironic that this piece reeks of LLM-writing while also simultaneously decrying the death of everything that is in antithesis to things like that. Is there a single shred of originality or shame left in the SV-adjacent writing sphere?

AI slop that complains about how AI is ruining the Internet is a trending genre on Hacker News.

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#77
"We embedded the follow buttons, added the share widgets, installed the trackers, and told our friends, readers, coworkers, and communities that the right place to find us was Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Instagram…."

Yeah, so glad to have shoved off that shit. My own site is bare bones, hand-rolled HTML. Would that the rest of the web were like that.

I suppose it takes time.

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#78
post #9

I do find it quite ironic that this piece reeks of LLM-writing while also simultaneously decrying the death of everything that is in antithesis to things like that. Is there a single shred of originality or shame left in the SV-adjacent writing sphere?

"this piece reeks of LLM-writing…"

How so?

It's getting to feel like some weird kind of AI McCarthyism where everything is suspected of being manufactured.

Since I have no idea whether something is LLM-generated or not, I've instead decided to argue things on their merits alone.

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the feedback. So hosting on say Wix is still Open Web? I suppose, is the converse free? Is a site that allows access without a login Open Web? Like say YouTube?

I know indie web camp has a thing against hosting services and probably the small web people would also say blogspot and wordpress and wix are too corpo. So imho drawing the distinction at not requiring payment/login works as an open web definition. And if self-hosting is a requirement for some people, there are other terms to use. Youtube, Substack, Medium and the like are open-ish. They're far more of a heavyweight…

If I go to Wix, Substack, Medium and I'm tracked with cookies, sent analytics to Google, a popup begging to allow notifications, a subscription—not "open".

Re: The open web isn't dying, we're killing it

#80

When @home first started figuring out how to IP-over-cable in the mid-90s, one of its early employees was incredibly excited that the promise was to offer symmetric up/down bandwidth, with the implicit goal that people could run servers at home. The entire industry, from IP providers to software developers, dropped this as a goal very early on. Bandwidth wasn't available, server installation and management was too co…

The whole discussion reminds me of talks at the dinner table with my father. He was born in 1939 studied what is "IT" nowadays in Vienna, Austria, and Chicago, Illinois. He was working as the head of IT at the University in Innsbruck when the first e-mail ever was sent at the CERN. The idea of a free and decentralised Internet to connect Universities and scientists on the whole planet was the ideal that started his workoholism. First networks were up, when suddenly the marked was flooded with products from the US based on a network fitting the needs of the US military.

My father complained bitterly about the hesitation of the european experts. Cooperation was still slowed down by national "pride". "Gifts" to decision takers and the (false) impression that the US tech was ripe, safe and ready to use stalled the european ideas of an internet of free access to the knowledge of human kind, an internet of enlightenment, so to say.

The european idea was that of an indestructable public infrastructure, like a public watergrid, but to fulfil the rights on education and access to knowledge rather than water.

Financed by public funding "from everyone for everyone". With open source building blocks. Like a rail network that can be enlarged and maintained from anyone anywhere. It would have been something new, something revolutionary.

He stated that the US solution would inherit the according values: militaristic, competitive, commercialised and capitalistic. When the first shops opened online and scientific publications started to be barred behind paywalls he stated: "That is the end of what the internet could have been."

Was he right? Somehow. Would the european solution have taken a different route? Maybe not. What remained from that time? The ideas and nostalgia visible in this thread. And an active open source community including the Linux ecosystem.

It is not dead. It diversified. It mirrors our societies. If my father would have survived the pandemic I am sure he would push for the creation of a new internet from scratch. With hardware that hardwires data safety, prohibits invasion of private spaces and functions as a public infrastructure. Would there be reckless drivers? Sure. But they wouldn't dictate the rules of the road including fares and up- and download rates.

Free as in liberty, not free as in freedom.

Dear ingenieurs: It's your turn.

P.S.: This comment reflects the opinion of my father as I remember it. It is not based on journalistic research.

Post reply on HN