I disagree with the idea that the internet is worse than it used to be. Back in the day, you went into a forum and people were MEAN for no particular reason. People do that now over politics more than anything. Before, that’s just how people were.
Depends on what you mean by “back in the day”. So far as I know you could be ~30, and “back in the day” for you is the 2005 era.
For some of us “back in the day” is more like the early 90’s (and even earlier than that if we want to include other online services, like BBS’s) — and the difference since Eternal September is pretty stark (in both good and bad ways).
Yeah, now you get mean people, a drive-by malware installer, AI generated ads, and 4mb of JS that tries to scrape every detail about you so they can make a profile they can sell to (dis)information brokers.
Truly, an improvement.
(People have always sucked, the Internet just lets you interact with more people so…)
Saying the internet was better is a haze of nostalgia, a gross underappreciation of new technologies, and a smattering of truth.
Over 38% of the stuff I flush down the toilet is gone forever, too, and that’s ok.
The early Internet was interesting only because it was new and different. Most of the stuff out there was low-quality stuff just for funsies projects. The barrier to entry is still very low. Anyone who wants to put up a website with whatever they’re interested in requires no technical expertise and isn’t even expensive. But you don’t see a lot of that because it’s not new or exciting and few people are going to waste their time on it. On the upside, you can now throw up your own federated content system with relatively little work and have a huge community for very very little. Things are gone chiefly because they weren’t worth saving. Sure, there are exceptions like DPReview, but they even got a reprieve because they were worth keeping.
Before the advent of filter bubbles, the internet was a creative playground where people explored different ideas, discussed varying perspectives, and collaborated with individuals from “outgroups” – those outside their social circles who may hold opposing views.
And how did anyone find those varying perspectives? Everything was unindexed, even search engines were crap. Fark, Digg and Slashdot, link aggregators and forums are the same as they’ve always been. Are the majority of those conversations gone? Sure, but you can find another 25,000 of them on Reddit, x, Instagram, and Lemmy, and when those are gone, some other service will replace them.
If people are moving to algo-driven social media, it’s because they perceive it as advantageous to them. I found the algo ate too much of my time and moved back to diverse and static youtube clients.
The genie is already out of the bottle BUT, one solution would be to raise the barrier to entry again.
Return the internet to the pre-“smart” phone era, in which a minimum bar of effort and knowledge needed to be present in order to connect and participate on the web.
In 2008~2010, the flood gates opened for all the normies to stampede in and everything has been downhill since then.
Return the internet to the pre-“smart” phone era, in which a minimum bar of effort and knowledge needed to be present in order to connect and participate on the web.
Yeah. I think that’s happening now. The public will discover the Fediverse, but I’m not sure if they’ll be welcomed into every community here.
How about BBSs? If you want to spam at 1200 baud, you had better be dedicated.
I agree to an extent, but the problem is not so much the normies themselves as it is the massive commercial market they represent. You might point to mainstream social media as evidence of a problem with the people themselves, but you would be overlooking the fact that the surveillance and attention economies have meant these social media platforms are deliberately designed to position people against one another to drive engagement so these companies can charge more to advertisers. Discourse on the internet isn’t getting worse because there are more bad people online, it’s getting worse because companies have a financial incentive to turn us into bad people when we are online.
The normies are not the problem, they are the victims. The abusers are the giant corporation manipulating the masses and monetizing a publicly funded infrastructure for their own gains.
The point isn’t “it’s their fault”. But it changes the dynamic.
An enthusiast community can, for good and bad, largely self regulate. It’s easier to keep corporate interests either out, or engaging on your terms.
Once the community grows to include a high enough proportion of casual participants, that ability goes away, because manipulations that don’t work on inquisitive expert audiences do work on less informed ones, and less willing to question. It’s harder to establish who actually knows what they’re talking about by reputation, it’s harder to weed out the trolls from the naive, and it’s just generally harder to keep the focus of the community where you want it to be.
Corporations are one of the groups of bad actors manipulating that difference in dynamics, but the dynamics are different because of the large influx of people who don’t understand as much and aren’t trying to.
Betteridge’s law of headlines. Any headline that ends with a question the answer is always no.
No where does that source say Biden tried to shut down the Internet. The closest is this part
Donald Trump publicly advocated that “in some places” we have to talk about “closing up the Internet.” He got his wish, but it came after him personally following his election in 2016. The very free speech about which he made fun turned out to be rather important to him and his cause.
Also I can’t take a site seriously when one of their sources they link to is the Twitter user “End Wokeness”
There are some parts I agree with, but there’s plenty there that’s right wing dog whistles for “I want to say hateful things and have no consequences” free speech
