4 ms·

Every time I say something like that, someone tells me that we're better off the way things are. Tracking is BS. Ads are a great way to make my computer fetch d

Every time I say something like that, someone tells me that we're better off the way things are. Tracking is BS. Ads are a great way to make my computer fetch data that I neither need nor want, and to run programs that work against my best interests using my own CPU cycles. I'm not completely convinced that we wouldn't be better off dumping the current state of the art and re-designing from first principles.

monsieurbanana 10y ago
We're better off the way things are, when compared to before. I'm not saying things are perfect, or even good, but we're definitely better than before. You complain about ads, but think about what they enable. How many times do you use google per day? It lives off ads. Do you use any social network? They live off ads. Ads are certainly not the best way for us to obtain those kind of commodities, but between having them and not having anything I still choose them.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  > You complain about ads, but think about what they enable. Saying that the ends justify the means certainly simplifies things. It's not a compelling argument to me; I suppose that I'm too much of an idealist. > Do you use any social network? They live off ads. Indeed, they do. And I use the benefit of my education to block them every way that I can, pushing the cost onto others. Without ads, or at least some kind of financial support, networks like that would fall apart. Necessity being the mother of invention, and interpersonal connections being necessary, we'd invent another solution. I like the idea of small, independent, federated social networks, but I don't know that they'd actually be practical.
aethertap 10y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but with a slightly different angle. I think one of the things that made the early Internet interesting was that it was populated almost exclusively by enthusiasts (geeks, artists, etc) with little commercial motivation. Stuff was quirky and interesting. Today's Internet is a fantastic platform for commerce. I'd be very sad to see it go, but I also think there's a need for the weird old quirky net we had before marketing took over. What I'd like to see is the emergence of a new enthusiast network that's inherently difficult and inconvenient to commercialize alongside the existing net. One is good for getting eyes on content and marketing stuff, which is important, and the other is good for just putting up whatever you find interesting simply because you want to. When I want to buy something I'll use what we have now, but the other net would be more interesting to just browse around and share stuff on. I think IPFS [1] or something similar might have the potential to resurrect the geek net. IPFS with a distributed mesh network infrastructure seems like it would be slow, inconvenient for commerce, and probably attractive only to the kind of people that made the early net interesting, especially with the current net as competition. 1. https://ipfs.io https://ipfs.io
- khedoros1 10y ago
  I like that idea; like a separate com-net and pub-net, or something. IPFS seems like a great way to spread the cost among the users; it reminds me of an even more decentralized version of Usenet, or something.
- ColanR 10y ago
  I like that idea, though it seems the best way to 'make that happen' is to explicitly form a community that agrees to only put their content in IPFS. And there would have to be enough popular members that others would be motivated to join and access what's there. Otherwise I don't see it as more than a toy.
  - aethertap 10y ago
    Yeah, that's a good point. One of the things that I think could help would be to make the basic technology stack somehow different from html/css/js, so that different (not necessarily more or less) things are possible in the new medium. I don't know what that should look like, because my own preference is strongly toward text-oriented content which is well-served by the current stack, but having a different kind of toys in the playground might be enough to entice people to contribute all by itself. > Otherwise I don't see it as more than a toy. I was a kid so I could well be wrong, but my memory of the early net was that most 'regular' people kind of saw it as a toy. It wasn't until the start of the .com boom that it really became something different. Being seen as a toy might actually be good in this case.
    - ColanR 10y ago
      I love text based content, too. Maybe this is a chance to return to using the terminal by default (I learned about the Bloomberg terminal recently; I guess people still use text-based interfaces a lot). I like the idea of using a different tech stack, though it would have to be very simple to keep up with (and surpass) current levels of innovation. Hence, the terminal? > my memory of the early net was that most 'regular' people kind of saw it as a toy I think you're a few years ahead of me, then. I don't remember much of that time. But the difference might be (and I hope not) that the general web was a much more unique tool back then, and people knew about it from sheer novelty. I think the chicken/egg problem of users is harder to solve in this case. Not saying it can't be done, just saying it has to be solved intentionally and with effort.
bubo_bubo 10y ago
The great thing about the modern web is that ads are centralized (for various values of centralization) on ad networks. So it's damn easy to have an ad-free experience by dumping them to 0.0.0.0 in hosts. It doesn't get rid of silly css and "too clever by half" javascript for the "content site" but dumping the ad networks makes a difference. Every time I suggest this some ... person... says "but the ads pay for the Internet!" I just look at them as if they're wearing a suit made of dead kittens.

monsieurbanana 10y ago

We're better off the way things are, when compared to before. I'm not saying things are perfect, or even good, but we're definitely better than before. You complain about ads, but think about what they enable. How many times do you use google per day? It lives off ads. Do you use any social network? They live off ads. Ads are certainly not the best way for us to obtain those kind of commodities, but between having them and not having anything I still choose them.

khedoros1 10y ago
> You complain about ads, but think about what they enable. Saying that the ends justify the means certainly simplifies things. It's not a compelling argument to me; I suppose that I'm too much of an idealist. > Do you use any social network? They live off ads. Indeed, they do. And I use the benefit of my education to block them every way that I can, pushing the cost onto others. Without ads, or at least some kind of financial support, networks like that would fall apart. Necessity being the mother of invention, and interpersonal connections being necessary, we'd invent another solution. I like the idea of small, independent, federated social networks, but I don't know that they'd actually be practical.

aethertap 10y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but with a slightly different angle. I think one of the things that made the early Internet interesting was that it was populated almost exclusively by enthusiasts (geeks, artists, etc) with little commercial motivation. Stuff was quirky and interesting. Today's Internet is a fantastic platform for commerce. I'd be very sad to see it go, but I also think there's a need for the weird old quirky net we had before marketing took over. What I'd like to see is the emergence of a new enthusiast network that's inherently difficult and inconvenient to commercialize alongside the existing net. One is good for getting eyes on content and marketing stuff, which is important, and the other is good for just putting up whatever you find interesting simply because you want to. When I want to buy something I'll use what we have now, but the other net would be more interesting to just browse around and share stuff on. I think IPFS [1] or something similar might have the potential to resurrect the geek net. IPFS with a distributed mesh network infrastructure seems like it would be slow, inconvenient for commerce, and probably attractive only to the kind of people that made the early net interesting, especially with the current net as competition. 1. https://ipfs.io https://ipfs.io

khedoros1 10y ago
I like that idea; like a separate com-net and pub-net, or something. IPFS seems like a great way to spread the cost among the users; it reminds me of an even more decentralized version of Usenet, or something.
ColanR 10y ago
I like that idea, though it seems the best way to 'make that happen' is to explicitly form a community that agrees to only put their content in IPFS. And there would have to be enough popular members that others would be motivated to join and access what's there. Otherwise I don't see it as more than a toy.
- aethertap 10y ago
  Yeah, that's a good point. One of the things that I think could help would be to make the basic technology stack somehow different from html/css/js, so that different (not necessarily more or less) things are possible in the new medium. I don't know what that should look like, because my own preference is strongly toward text-oriented content which is well-served by the current stack, but having a different kind of toys in the playground might be enough to entice people to contribute all by itself. > Otherwise I don't see it as more than a toy. I was a kid so I could well be wrong, but my memory of the early net was that most 'regular' people kind of saw it as a toy. It wasn't until the start of the .com boom that it really became something different. Being seen as a toy might actually be good in this case.
  - ColanR 10y ago
    I love text based content, too. Maybe this is a chance to return to using the terminal by default (I learned about the Bloomberg terminal recently; I guess people still use text-based interfaces a lot). I like the idea of using a different tech stack, though it would have to be very simple to keep up with (and surpass) current levels of innovation. Hence, the terminal? > my memory of the early net was that most 'regular' people kind of saw it as a toy I think you're a few years ahead of me, then. I don't remember much of that time. But the difference might be (and I hope not) that the general web was a much more unique tool back then, and people knew about it from sheer novelty. I think the chicken/egg problem of users is harder to solve in this case. Not saying it can't be done, just saying it has to be solved intentionally and with effort.

bubo_bubo 10y ago

The great thing about the modern web is that ads are centralized (for various values of centralization) on ad networks. So it's damn easy to have an ad-free experience by dumping them to 0.0.0.0 in hosts. It doesn't get rid of silly css and "too clever by half" javascript for the "content site" but dumping the ad networks makes a difference. Every time I suggest this some ... person... says "but the ads pay for the Internet!" I just look at them as if they're wearing a suit made of dead kittens.