5 ms·

Hi, thanks for appreciating some of my work. Click bait titles have a bad reputation because they either lie or don't go in-depth into the topic. That's not th

by staltz 9y ago

Hi, thanks for appreciating some of my work. Click bait titles have a bad reputation because they either lie or don't go in-depth into the topic. That's not the case here. I wrote with depth and research, and the body of the article is truthful to the title. I believe the title is, although sensationally shocking, true.

vog 9y ago
> the body of the article is truthful to the title With all due respect, I don't see how the article backs up this utterly exaggerated claim. Unless, of course, you're using the word "dying" in the sense that everybody and everything will die at some time. But I don't think this is meant here, as that wouldn't be "shocking" at all.
- nautilus12 9y ago
  huh? He's describing a future where the web no longer exists. Only Google, facebook and amazon's network exists. This seems pretty representative of the term dying.
  - netzone 9y ago
    But then he would need to describe the context in which the word "Web" is used in the title also.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Not really. You wouldn't call Prodigy Online or AOL or the other walled networks 'the Web.'
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
JeanMarcS 9y ago
And yet, reading the title I was waiting for the "reason number 7 gonna blow your mind !" And I hope it won't stop others who are allergic to clickbait titles to read your article, because it is very well documented and very insightful. I am, too, afraid of the end of net neutrality and the future you describe is really scary.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  I'll be honest, I took pause at the title. I only ventured into the comments because I was baffled how such a click-bait title was in the #1 spot.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    It's _not_ click bait if it describes exactly what the thesis of the article is. It's a simple explicative sentence. Maybe you folks have just been conditioned enough by click-bait now that you can't distinguish the difference, and I don't mean to denigrate you by stating that.
    - mywittyname 9y ago
      I agree with what you're saying, but you can't know if the title is sensationalist until you actually read the article. Which is the point of click-bait titles.
bertil 9y ago
Your argument is that the web is now mainly controlled by two companies, not “dead”. The technology is still there but the diverse hosting options and the creativity that many of us associated with it (what could be called “the spirit of the original web”) could be in peril. I don’t think that you are arguing that Google and Facebook are fighting HTTP/HTML - although they are offering alternatives that they present as technologically preferable.
kowdermeister 9y ago
Not remotely true, the web isn't dying, it's changing, but that's less clickbaity :) For such a hard claim you have to specify what do you exactly mean by "the web". "The original vision for the Web according to its creator, Tim Berners-Lee, was a space with multilateral publishing and consumption of information. It was a peer-to-peer vision with no dependency on a single party." This web is still alive and well, nobody stops you from grabbing a domain name and launch anything you wish. Tim was a bit naive that he assumed profit seeking won't mess with his creation. The underlying protocol is still the same as it was 20 years ago. With 3,885,567,619 internet users this dying platform is the best thing in computing we had so far. Of course it's changing, but the web is much larger than GOOG, FB, AMZN. Yo are ignoring the long tail and that tail is very long.
- TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
  And, yet, network effects being what they are, how does anyone with an independent thought rise to visibility, outside of someone else's platform, when the "web" completely dominated by 100 web properties?
  - kowdermeister 9y ago
    I don't know, make it be the individuals problem to spread their individual and original thought. That might sound harsh so I clarify a bit. If I have a big, world changing individual thought and I create something good, then it will probably be picked up by the endless blogs, magazines, journals. I can place it on GitHub or buy a $10 server and I'm good to go, in that case I manage almost everything about it. It's not the web's jobs to filter out the gems. If my individual thought is not much better than "Mondays suck" then Twitter is probably a good place for it to be forgotten.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    That's a different question and has nothing to do with the web dying, which it isn't. The freedom to put your voice out there has never included the right to be heard or popular. You have more ability today to be heard than ever before, but you're one of billions, it's not supposed to be easy.

by staltz 9y ago

vog 9y ago

> the body of the article is truthful to the title With all due respect, I don't see how the article backs up this utterly exaggerated claim. Unless, of course, you're using the word "dying" in the sense that everybody and everything will die at some time. But I don't think this is meant here, as that wouldn't be "shocking" at all.

nautilus12 9y ago
huh? He's describing a future where the web no longer exists. Only Google, facebook and amazon's network exists. This seems pretty representative of the term dying.
- netzone 9y ago
  But then he would need to describe the context in which the word "Web" is used in the title also.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    Not really. You wouldn't call Prodigy Online or AOL or the other walled networks 'the Web.'
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

JeanMarcS 9y ago

And yet, reading the title I was waiting for the "reason number 7 gonna blow your mind !" And I hope it won't stop others who are allergic to clickbait titles to read your article, because it is very well documented and very insightful. I am, too, afraid of the end of net neutrality and the future you describe is really scary.

mywittyname 9y ago
I'll be honest, I took pause at the title. I only ventured into the comments because I was baffled how such a click-bait title was in the #1 spot.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  It's _not_ click bait if it describes exactly what the thesis of the article is. It's a simple explicative sentence. Maybe you folks have just been conditioned enough by click-bait now that you can't distinguish the difference, and I don't mean to denigrate you by stating that.
  - mywittyname 9y ago
    I agree with what you're saying, but you can't know if the title is sensationalist until you actually read the article. Which is the point of click-bait titles.

bertil 9y ago

Your argument is that the web is now mainly controlled by two companies, not “dead”. The technology is still there but the diverse hosting options and the creativity that many of us associated with it (what could be called “the spirit of the original web”) could be in peril. I don’t think that you are arguing that Google and Facebook are fighting HTTP/HTML - although they are offering alternatives that they present as technologically preferable.

kowdermeister 9y ago

Not remotely true, the web isn't dying, it's changing, but that's less clickbaity :) For such a hard claim you have to specify what do you exactly mean by "the web". "The original vision for the Web according to its creator, Tim Berners-Lee, was a space with multilateral publishing and consumption of information. It was a peer-to-peer vision with no dependency on a single party." This web is still alive and well, nobody stops you from grabbing a domain name and launch anything you wish. Tim was a bit naive that he assumed profit seeking won't mess with his creation. The underlying protocol is still the same as it was 20 years ago. With 3,885,567,619 internet users this dying platform is the best thing in computing we had so far. Of course it's changing, but the web is much larger than GOOG, FB, AMZN. Yo are ignoring the long tail and that tail is very long.

TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
And, yet, network effects being what they are, how does anyone with an independent thought rise to visibility, outside of someone else's platform, when the "web" completely dominated by 100 web properties?
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  I don't know, make it be the individuals problem to spread their individual and original thought. That might sound harsh so I clarify a bit. If I have a big, world changing individual thought and I create something good, then it will probably be picked up by the endless blogs, magazines, journals. I can place it on GitHub or buy a $10 server and I'm good to go, in that case I manage almost everything about it. It's not the web's jobs to filter out the gems. If my individual thought is not much better than "Mondays suck" then Twitter is probably a good place for it to be forgotten.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  That's a different question and has nothing to do with the web dying, which it isn't. The freedom to put your voice out there has never included the right to be heard or popular. You have more ability today to be heard than ever before, but you're one of billions, it's not supposed to be easy.