this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2023
507 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1083 readers
5 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] frustbox@lemmy.ml 98 points 2 years ago (18 children)

We have made mistakes.

We wanted it all to be free. It was free. I remember the early days of the internet, the webforums, the IRC, it was mostly sites run by enthusiasts. A few companies showing their products to would-be customers. It was awesome and it was all free.

And then it got popular, it got mainstream. Running servers got expensive and the webmasters were looking for funding. And we resisted paywalls. The internet is free, that's how it's supposed to work!

They turned to advertising. That's fair, a few banners, no big deal, we can live with that. It worked for television! And for a while that was OK.

Where did it all go sideways? Well, it was much too much effort to negotiate advertisement deals between websites and advertisers one website at a time, so the advertisement networks were born. Sign up for funding, embed a small script and you're done. Advertisers can book ad space with the network and their banner appears on thousands of websites. Then they figured out they can monitor individual user's interests, and show them more "relevant" ads, and make more money for more effective ad campaigns.

And now we have no privacy online. Which caused regulators like the EU to step in and try to limit user data harvesting. With mixed results as we all know. For one it doesn't seem to get enforced enough so a lot of companies just get away with. But also the consent banners are just clumsy and annoying.

And now we're swamped with ads, and sponsored content written by AI, because capitalism's gonna capitalism and squeeze as much profit as they can, until an equilibrium is reached between maximum revenue and user tolerance for BS. Look up "enshittification"

I wonder how the web would look like if we had not resisted paid content back then. There were attempts to do things differently. flattr was one thing for a while. Patreon, ko-fi and others are awesome for small creators. Gives them independence and freedom to do their thing and not depend on big platforms or corporations. The fediverse and open source are awesome.

There's still a lot of great stuff out there for those of us who know where to look. But large parts of the internet are atrocious.

[–] Skimmer5728@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

honestly heartbreaking in a lot of ways to see the current turn of events and how the web is today.

but what could we have done to prevent it? im not sure paywalls would've been feasible, i feel like most people would refuse to pay or just avoid your website all together. maybe a paywall network of websites of some kind could've worked? but its really hard to say.

i don't even have a problem with ads on sites to an extent, as long as they aren't overly obnoxious and don't spy on you and track your every move. that shouldn't be too much to ask, right? but alas, i guess it is in 2023. πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ

just such a sad state of things. the web is currently unusable without a content blocker or protection of some kind, which is insane to think about. this all really only scratches the surface too of the modern web's issues. in general a lot of the individuality and freedom of the internet is just... gone. all completely corporate and shall now, so much seo spam and clickbait and other garbage, just for the most clicks or revenue possible. there's little quality left for sure.

feels like we lost the internet in a lot of ways. i wonder what the solution is, if there even is one. i guess we just can't give up fighting.

[–] animist@allthingstech.social 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@Skimmer5728 I think what we're doing right here in the fediverse is a good solution. We're just building a parallel infrastructure to their dumb web3.0 garbage. Those who want a better Internet can come over here and those who want to stick with garbage can stick with it.

[–] Skimmer5728@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

well said, i agree, the fediverse is definitely a good approach.

i think the only concern will be getting more people to move here and adopt it, it'll be harder to convince and appeal to more mainstream people. but i guess that'll be easier and easier as the web goes to shit and gets worse and worse over time than it already is, lol.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fediverse is really still in its infancy. Its only just shifted from those with a lot of technical knowledge to those with a fluency of it.

It's when the average person can create an account and start engaging that it will reach critical mass.

It's not a bad thing that its taking a while to get there so that certain cultures, terms of engagement and stable/viable instances (each with their funding streams) can be established. If there were a sudden mass exodus from centralised systems to the fediverse, it would just mean a massive loss of the signal to noise ratio rather than a slow, measure integration of each wave of new users.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frustbox@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The comment was getting long and I didn't want to get into socioeconomic side effects, mobile, or other factors.

It's not all bleak. The internet is still built on a foundation of free and open technology. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (aka ECMAScript), TCP/IP and DNS …

The best thing we can do is teach those things. Keep them accessible to as many people as possible and make sure they don't become forgotten arcane voodoo knowledge. Anyone can set up a website and share it with others. We don't have to depend on big social networks.

The biggest challenge is how do you get people to be curious about this stuff? Back in the day, we had to learn, we had to look under the hood, because half the time stuff just didn't work and we needed to figure out how to fix it. But today everything is hidden behind a shiny UI and most things just work. There's no need to look under the hood (if you even still can, and it's not some encrypted blob or compiled binary webASM nonsense).

[–] jarfil@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Anyone can set up a website and share it with others

Not as simple as it used to be. Thanks to the abuse from ad, social media, and other tracking networks, now you need to comply with the cookie laws, personal information laws, data retention laws... and so on. It's no longer as simple as setting up a website and just sharing it; just having an uncontrolled log, or lacking one, can land you in trouble. Allow random users add content (like comments) to the site, and you can get drowned before even realizing what's happening.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] argv_minus_one 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Running servers got expensive

No it didn't. Running a server today is dirt cheap compared to the bad old days. So is registering a domain. Getting a TLS certificate doesn't cost anything at all.

However, there are a lot more people here now. It used to be you could feasibly run a moderately popular website off a single server and it'd be fine. Now, with billions of people on the Internet, you need an army of servers distributed around the world if your site gets even remotely popular.

But also the consent banners are just clumsy and annoying.

That's a feature, not a bug. Consent banners were manufactured as a way to turn public opinion against GDPR and generate political pressure to repeal it. β€œLook at how those Europeans ruined the web!” GDPR was supposed to pressure these unscrupulous advertisers into giving up their spooky tracking, but they did this instead. And it's workingβ€”most people blame GDPR for ruining the web, not the sleazeballs who actually ruined it.

[–] KelsonV@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

Sure, servers are cheaper now. Domains are cheap now. TLS certs are free now. But that happened after the advertising business model became dominant.

For a while, server power was barely keeping up with the rise in demand, and you couldn't just add another cloud server or bump up the RAM allocation on the one you have, you had to physically install new hardware. That took a larger chunk of money than adding $5 to your hosting plan, and time to set up the hardware.

By the time the tech stack got significantly cheaper (between faster hardware and virtualization, not to mention Let's Encrypt), advertising was already entrenched and starting to coalesce around a handful of big networks.

[–] awooo@pawb.social 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

I feel like that's where online payment systems really let us down. If there was an easy universal way to pay a few cents to view content and it wasn't a privacy and fee nightmare, I'm sure people would have no problem doing that. Digicash systems come to mind, I hope they could make a comeback one day.

But I also fear a lot of the damage could've been done already, kids who grow up with the internet now will probably only remember big tech platforms and may not be very eager to try out something more complicated.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago (9 children)

I like your suggestion with easily payable small amounts. Because the way payment currently works is just not scale-able on an individual level. Sure, $20 per month for a technical news site would be worth it ... if that was the only news site you are consuming. But it isn't. I consume multiple tech news, local news, etc. I can't get back my full worth of spent money per site, because my time is split between multiple sites; and my time is finite.

I also can't just say "well, this month I consume only site A, next only site B, etc.", because that defeats how "news" work. In the end I skim headlines (or even sometimes content) and THEN it shows what is actually of interest and where I stay longer/dig deeper/actually read full.

In a perfect world we probably could have a "tip jar" at the end of every article that people throw in digital cash when the article was worth it. Unfortunately too many people would abuse it and simply not pay at all, so authors will have to ask for payment upfront ... but then I pay for something which I don't even know will be good. Maybe after seeing the full article (not yet reading it in detail) I realize it's not the kind of content I hoped for.

That thing was indeed easier with print media. You go to the store, flick through the magazine/paper and if you like it you pay for it and go read it.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Xer0@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Great comment. I made a community called !oldweb today to share and discuss old style websites and sites that aren't just the top social media sites. So things like quirky personal websites, webrings, website lists made by others etc.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The first big problem was malware in ads (and web in general). This has caused people to install adblocks on their parents' and friends' devices.

Then there were the annoying ads: autoplaying videos, popups and other shit. This has caused a lot of normies to install adblockers themselves.

Then the privacy concerns, where even basic users notice that they look at a product on one store and now the recommendations follow them everywhere.

But the marketing companies keep pushing, and the OS providers like Google, MS and Apple keep restricting what you can install on your machine, this is a full-on war between users and the big tech.

Nobody was complaining about small banner ads. But they just have to keep pushing and break things. It's like with banks, or mythological creatures - insatiable.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] LolaCat 52 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I always forget how many intrusive ads are on the internet. One time I shared a link to one of my family members and they almost got a virus because of a pop-up ad. The web is actually unusable without uBlock Origin.

[–] SapphicSandwich 24 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I shared a link from a movie streaming site not knowing that without uBlock Origin the page was covered in nearly pornographic mobile game ads.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] wintrparkgrl 17 points 2 years ago

this is the #1 reason, #2 being the initial reason I started using adblockers in 2010, ads with audio

[–] bappity@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

ublock origin is the best! I currently use it to filter out all twitter blue users :)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.ml 38 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] CaptainAlchemy@lemmy.one 12 points 2 years ago

"Allow me to demonstrate! No hesitation!"

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 37 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago

This is heavy metal irony.

[–] Borgzilla@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Firefox + uBlock Origin + Reader View

[–] lionel@lemmy.coupou.fr 6 points 2 years ago

This, if it doesn't work I just go to another website

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Elbullazul@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 years ago (12 children)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] bigbox@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)
[–] sup@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lemmy feels like the old internet IMO and I'm really enjoying it so far! :)

[–] bigbox@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tarneo@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years ago (10 children)

I made a blogpost about that, and I promise you'll see no ads, no cookies, no JavaScript, just the blogpost.

[–] bigbox@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Excellent post, and I love your sites minimal, old school design. I finally found the right corner of the internet where people actually think about this kind of thing! It's so frustrating how over the years search engine results just give you bloated, pointless articles that exist only to rank high in SEO and get ad revenue.

I too have been using the site:reddit.com method, but it sucks to essentially only have one for-profit website as the one I use to research things.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] elouboub@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

flattr was on the right track, but didn't know how to do it right. Reddit, discord, and free-to-play games figured it out: let people pay for visuals, status, and exclusivity.

visuals = skins, themes, sets, icons, merch - make it flashy and people will buy it

status = "biggest contributor", "biggest tipper", "most active poster", "I paid for this icon saying I'm better than all of you"

exclusivity = one time access pass to a face to face interview with the devs, limited community access, access to pre-lease of some feature, ...

None of it has to be actually functional. It just has to make people feel better (than others) and you can make bank without ads.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The easy route to Exclusivity is Manufactured FOMO (fear of missing out).

Visuals that give people a sense of "I'm better than you" are a huge potential moneymaker even if they do nothing functionally. We will see if we need these, but honestly even these changes start to alter the landscape of the community in I view to be negative ways.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Keeping a community as donation supported (with no status given for doing so) goes a long way towards fostering a supportive and intentional ethos, even when it's a small fraction of the users donating.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] golden_eel@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Road to hell being paved with good intentions and all, I guess. The reason sites all have the cookie permission dialog now is because of the GDPR, which has the right idea on data privacy, but the implementation wound up being so terrible that it winds up doing this. Prior to that dialog, they'd just store/read the cookies without permission (though lots of people would proactively sandbox browsers to make it a non-issue). I honestly can't decide which is worse, at this point.

I like the ones that show the prompt for "we've detected an ad-blocker" with the option you can click for "continue without disabling and not supporting us". Guilt trips work in human to human interactions, but not for random Internet prompts.

Of course I'd prefer the web simply not using cookies on every single site I visit (therefore not needing the prompt), but that's not going to happen. Sites have to monetize somehow to stay alive.

[–] ColonelPanic@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The reason sites all have the cookie permission dialog now is because of the GDPR, which has the right idea on data privacy, but the implementation wound up being so terrible that it winds up doing this.

GDPR is not at fault here though, since it does not require asking for consent if the processed data is necessary for the purpose of the provided service. For example, a web shop usually wouldn't have to ask for permission to store items in the shopping part because that is a necessary part of the online shopping process. In that sense, requiring the consent dialog for all unnecessary purposes is better as you can at least see who's trying to screw you over. Don't kill the messenger here.

I think it's also important to remember that websites can only get away with these annoyances because it a) is easily automatable and b) has been the default mode of operation for decades. If restaurant waiters today started asking guests if they could sell info on what and when you ate, who you were with, and what you looked like, everyone would be creeped out. Before GDPR, it was pretty much normalized to do the same thing on the internet without even asking for consent.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nyanix 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Barbarian@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I upvoted and chuckled, but please use Imgur or similar links while the entire ecosystem is being hit by the Reddit hug of death :)

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (11 children)

I think we have 10-15 years or so left before the internet becomes totally unusable due to ads, paywalls and general bad design all over the place.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 13 points 2 years ago

The internet is fine, you're just using the wrong parts of it.

[–] q5VtXnYt@infosec.pub 10 points 2 years ago

Yet I am somewhat optimistic that we can build our own communities that may work beyond this crap.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On the other hand, Wired has always been trash. I used to adore starting in elementary school ever since I picked one up at a dentist reception area. Had a subscription all the way up until the end of high school. I loved the articles, the reply to readers at the back of the magazine, but most of all the gadget reviews a la Cool Tools by Kevin Kelly.

In retrospect it is a luxury lifestyle brand magazine with more advertisements than actual interesting content. The books always felt thick, but the damn thing would become a shitty pamphlet if you take out the ads.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zedro@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Just accept all, then delete cookies automatically. Setup any browser you use to delete any cookies and write a whitelist for the sites that you gonna need to auto login.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nothendev@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί